1. Nothing is without an origin except God alone. In as much asof all things as they exist the origin comes first, so must it ofnecessity come first in the discussion of them. Only so can therebe agreement about what they are: for it is impossible for youto discern what the quality of a thing is unless you are firstassured whether itself exists: and you can only know that byknowing where it comes from. As then I have now in the orderingof my treatise reached this part of the subject, I desire to hearfrom Marcion the origin of Paul the apostle. I am a sort of newdisciple, having had instruction from no other teacher. For themoment my only belief is that nothing ought to be believed with- out good reason, and that that is believed without good reasonwhich is believed without knowledge of its origin: and I mustwith the best of reasons approach this inquiry with uneasinesswhen I find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in the listof the apostles in the gospel I find no trace. So when I am toldthat he was subsequently promoted by our Lord, by now at restin heaven, I find some lack of foresight in the fact that Christdid not know beforehand that he would have need of him, butafter setting in order the office of apostleship and sending themout upon their duties, considered it necessary, on an impulseand not by deliberation, to add another, by compulsion soto speak and not by design. So then, shipmaster out of Pontus,supposing you have never accepted into your craft anysmuggled or illicit merchandise, have never appropriated oradulterated any cargo, and in the things of God are even morecareful and trustworthy, will you please tell us under what billof lading you accepted Paul as apostle, who had stamped himwith that mark of distinction, who commended him to you, andwho put him in your charge? Only so may you with confidencedisembark him: only so can he avoid being proved to belong tohim who has put in evidence all the documents that attest hisapostleship. He himself, says Marcion, claims to be an apostle,and that not from men nor through any man, but through JesusChrist.a Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his

V. 1

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

511

claim is confirmed by another person's attestation. One personwrites the document, another signs it, a third attests the signature,and a fourth enters it in the records. No man is for himself bothclaimant and witness. Besides this, you have found it written thatmany will come and say, Iam Christ.bIf there is one that makesa false claim to be Christ, much more can there be one whoprofesses that he is an apostle of Christ. Thus far my conversehas been in the guise of a disciple and an inquirer: from now onI propose to shatter your confidence, for you have no means ofproving its validity, and to shame your presumption, since youmake claims but reject the means of establishing them. Let Christ,let the apostle, belong to your other god: yet you have no proofof it except from the Creator's archives. Even Genesis long agopromised Paul to me. Among those figures and prophetical bless- ings over his sons, when Jacob had got to Benjamin he said,Benjamin is a ravening wolf: until morning he will still devour, and inthe evening will distribute food.cHe foresaw that Paul would ariseof the tribe of Benjamin, a ravening wolf devouring until themorning, that is, one who in his early life would harass the Lord'sflock as a persecutor of the churches, and then at evening woulddistribute food, that is, in declining age would feed Christ's sheepas the doctor of the gentiles. Also the harshness at first of Saul'spursuit of David, and afterwards his repentance and contentmenton receiving good for evil,d had nothing else in view except Paulin Saul according to tribal descent, and Jesus in David by theVirgin's descent from him. If these figurative mysteries do notplease you, certainly the Acts of the Apostles have handed down tome this history of Paul, nor can you deny it. From them I provethat the persecutor became an apostle, not from men, nor by a man:from them I am led even to believe him: by their means I
dis- lodge you from your claim to him, and have no fear of you whenyou ask, And do you then deny that Paul is an apostle? I speak noevil against him whom I retain for myself. If I deny, it is to forceyou to prove. If I deny, it is to enforce my claim that he is mine.Otherwise, if you have your eye on our belief, accept the evidenceon which it depends. If you challenge us to adopt yours, tell us thefacts on which it is founded. Either prove that the things you believereally are so: or else, if you have no proof, how can you believe?Or who are you, to believe in despite of him from whom alone there

826805 S

V. 2

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

513

is proof of what you believe? So then accept the apostle on my evi- dence, as as you do Christ: he is my apostle, as also Christ is mine.Here too our contest shall take place on the same front: my
chal- lenge shall be issued from the same stance, of a case already pro- ven: which is, that an apostle whom you deny to be the Creator's,whom in fact you represent as hostile to the Creator, has no rightto teach anything, to think anything, to intend anything, whichaccords with the Creator, but must from the outset proclaim hisother god with no less confidence than that with which he hasbroken loose from the Creator's law. For it is not likely that in
di- verging from Judaism he did not at the same time make it clearinto which god's faith he was diverging: because it would be
impos- sible for anyone to pass over from the Creator, without knowingto whom his transit was expected to lead. Now if Christ had alreadyrevealed that other god, the apostle's attestation had to follow: elsehe would not have been taken for the apostle of the god whomChrist had revealed, and indeed it was not permissible for a godalready revealed by Christ to be kept hidden from the apostle.Or if Christ had made no such revelation about that god, therewas the greater need for his being revealed by the apostle: forthere was now no possibility of his being revealed by any other,and without question there could be no belief in him if not evenan apostle revealed him. Such is my preliminary argument. Fromnow on I claim I shall prove that no other god was the subjectof the apostle's profession, on the same terms as I have provedthis of Christ: and my evidence will be Paul's epistles. That thesehave suffered mutilation even in number, the precedent of thatgospel, which is now the heretic's, must have prepared us to expect.

2. On the Epistle to the Galatians.1 [Gal. 1.] We too claim thatthe primary epistle against Judaism is that addressed to theGalatians. For we receive with open arms all that abolition of theancient law. The abolition itself derives from the Creator'sordinance, and I have already in these books more than oncediscussed the renovation foretold by the prophets of the Godwho is mine. But if the Creator promised that old things wouldpass away, because, he said, new things were to arise, and Christhas marked the date of that passing—The law and the prophetswere until John?—setting up John as a boundary stone between the

2. 1 See Appendix 2.

V. 2

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

515

one order and the other, of old things thereafter coining to anend, and new things beginning, the apostle also of necessity, inChrist revealed after John, invalidates the old things whilevalidating the new, and thus has for his concern the faith of noother god than that Creator under whose authority it was evenprophesied that the old things were to pass away. Consequentlyboth the dismantling of the law, and the establishment of thegospel, are on my side of the argument when in this actual epistlethey are connected with that assumption by which the Galatiansconceived the possibility of having faith in Christ, the Creator'sChrist, while still keeping the Creator's law: because it stillseemed to them beyond belief that the law should be set asideby its own Author. Now if they had been taught by the apostleabout an entirely different god, they would at once have knownthey must depart from the law of that God whom they had de- serted when they followed the other. For would any man who hadaccepted a new god, have waited any longer to be told that hemust follow a new rule of conduct? Really, the fact that the samedeity was being preached in the gospel who had always beenknown in the law, while the rule of conduct was not the same—here lay the whole ground of the discussion, whether the Creator'slaw must needs be put out of court by the gospel, in the Creator'sChrist. Take away that ground, and there is nothing left fordiscussion. But if there were nothing left for discussion becauseall of them acknowledged they had to depart from the Creator'sorder through faith in that other god, the apostle would havefound no reason for so strongly enforcing a duty which faith itselfhad naturally enjoined. Therefore the whole intent of this epistleis to teach that departure from the law results from the Creator'sordinance, as I shall next proceed to show. Also if he projects nomention of any new god—a thing he could never have more con- veniently done than while on this subject, where he could havefound for them a reason for the abeyance of the law in this soleand all-inclusive proposition of a new divinity—it is evident inwhat sense he writes, I marvel that ye are so soon removed from himthat called you into grace, unto another gospel—another in manner oflife, not in religion, another in rule of conduct, not in divinity: be- cause the gospel of Christ must needs be calling them away from thelaw, towards grace, not away from the Creator towards anothergod. For no one had removed them away from the Creator, so

V. 2

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

517

as to give them the impression that being transferred to anothergospel was as though they were being transferred <back again> tothe Creator. For when he also adds that there is no possible othergospel, he confirms that that is the Creator's, which he claims isthe gospel. Now the Creator promises a gospel when he speaksby Isaiah, Get thee up into the high mountain, thou that preachest thegospel to Sion, lift up the voice in thy strength, thou that preachest thegospel to Jerusalem:balso, to the person of the apostles, How timelyare the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, that preach the gospelof good thingsc—those, he means, who preach the gospel amongthe gentiles, because again, In his name shall the gentiles hoped—Christ's name, that is, to whom he says, I have set thee for a lightof the gentiles.eSo that if there is also a gospel of this new god, andyou will have it that this is what the apostle was then upholding,in that case there are two gospels, belonging to two gods, andthe apostle told a lie when he said there was no possible othergospel, though there is another, and he could just as well haveupheld his own gospel by proving it the better one, not by layingit down that it is the only one. But perhaps, to escape from this,you will say, And that is why he subjoined, Though an angel fromheaven preach the gospel otherwise, let him be anathema, because heknew the Creator also was going to preach the gospel. So againyou are tying yourself in knots: for this is what you are entangledwith. It is not possible for one to affirm there are two gospels, whohas just denied that there is more than one. Yet his meaning isclear, as he has put himself down first: But though we, or an angelfrom heaven, preach the gospel otherwise. He said it for the sake ofemphasis. And yet, if he himself is not going to preach the gospelotherwise, certainly an angel is not. So the reason why he referredto the angel was that as they were not to believe an angel, or anapostle, even less must they believe men: he had no intention ofconnecting the angel with the Creator's gospel. After that, as hebriefly describes the course of his conversion from persecutor toapostle he confirms what is written in the Acts of the Apostles,fin which the substance of this epistle is reviewed; namely, thatcertain persons intervened who said the men ought to be circum- cised, and that Moses' law must be kept, and that then theapostles, when asked for advice on this question, reported on theauthority of the Spirit that they ought not to lay burdens upon

V. 3

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

519

men which not even their fathers had been able to bear. Nowif even to this degree the Acts of the Apostles are in agreement withPaul, it becomes evident why you reject them: for they preachno other god than the Creator, nor the Christ of any god but theCreator, since neither is the promise of the Holy Spirit provedto have been fulfilled on any other testimony than the
documen- tary evidence of the Acts. And it is by no means reasonable thatthat writing should in part agree with the apostle, when it relateshis history in accordance with the evidence he supplies, and inpart disagree, when it proclaims in Christ the godhead of theCreator, with intent to make out that Paul did not follow thepreaching of the apostles, though in fact he did receive from themthe pattern of teaching how the law need not be kept.

3. [Gal. 2 and 3.] So he writes that after fourteen years he wentup to Jerusalem, to seek the support of Peter and the rest of theapostles, to confer with them concerning the content of his gospel,for fear lest for all those years he had run, or was still running,in vain—meaning, if he was preaching the gospel in any forminconsistent with theirs. So great as this was his desire to beapproved of and confirmed by those very people who, if youplease, you suggest should be understood to be of too closekindred with Judaism. But when he says that not even was Tituscircumcised, he now begins to make it plain that it was solelythe question of circumcision which had suffered disturbance, be- cause of their continued maintenance of the law, from those whomfor that reason he calls false brethren unawares brought in: fortheir policy was none other than to safeguard the continuanceof the law, dependent no doubt on unimpaired faith in theCreator; so that they were perverting the gospel, not by any suchinterpolation of scripture as to suggest that Christ belonged to theCreator, but by such a retention of the old rule of conduct asnot to repudiate the Creator's law. So he says, On account of falsebrethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our libertywhich we have in Christ, that they might reduce us to bondage, we gaveplace by subjection not even for an hour. For let us pay attention tothe meaning of his words, and the purpose of them, and <your>falsification of scripture will become evident. When he says first,But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelledto be circumcised, and then proceeds, On account of false brethren

V. 3

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

521

unawares brought in, and what follows, he begins at once to rendera reason for a contrary action, indicating for what purpose he dida thing he would neither have done nor have let it be known hehad done, except for the previous occurrence of that on accountof which he did do it. So then I would have you tell me, if thosefalse brethren had not come in unawares to spy out their liberty,would they have given place to subjection? I think not. Thenthey did give place because there were people on whose accountconcession was advisable. For this was in keeping with faith un- ripe and still in doubt regarding the observance of the law, wheneven the apostle himself suspected he might have run, or mightstill be running, in vain. So there was cause to discountenancethose false brethren who were spying upon Christian liberty, toprevent them from leading it astray into the bondage of Judaismbefore Paul learned that he had not run in vain, before those whowere apostles before him gave him their right hands, before withtheir agreement he undertook the task of preaching among thegentiles. Of necessity therefore he gave place, for a time, and soalso had sound reason for circumcising Timothy,a and bringingnazirites into the temple,b facts narrated in the Acts, and to thisextent true, that they are in character with an apostle who pro- fesses that to the Jews he became a Jew that he might gain theJews, and one living under the law for the sake of those who wereliving under the lawc—and so even for the sake of those broughtin unawares—and lastly that he had become all things to all men,that he might gain them all. If these facts too require to be under- stood in this sense, neither can any man deny that Paul was apreacher of that God and that Christ, whose law, although herejects it, yet he did now and again for circumstances' sake acton, but would have needed without hesitation to thrust out of hisway if it had been a new god he had brought to light. Well it istherefore that Peter and James and John gave Paul their righthands, and made a compact about distribution of office, thatPaul should go to the gentiles, and they to the circumcision: onlythat they should remember the poor—this too according to thelaw of that Creator who cherishes the poor and needy, as I haveproved in my discussion of your gospel.1 Thus it is beyond doubtthat it was a question solely of the law, until decision was reachedas to how much out of the law it was convenient should be

3. 1 i.e. IV. 14.

V. 3

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

523

retained. But, you object, he censures Peter for not walking up- rightly according to the truth of the gospel. Yes, he does censurehim, yet not for anything more than inconsistency in his takingof food: for this he varied according to various kinds of company,through fear of those who were of the circumcision, not becauseof any perverse view of deity: on that matter he would have with- stood any others to their face, when for the smaller matter of
incon- sistent converse he did not spare even Peter. But what do theMarcionites expect us to believe? For the rest, let the apostleproceed, with his statement that by the works of the law a manis not justified, but only by faith. The faith however of that sameGod whose is the law. For he would not have taken so muchtrouble to distinguish faith from law—a distinction which differ- ence of deity would have made without his insistence, if there hadbeen any such difference. Quite naturally, he was not rebuildingthe things he had pulled down. But the law was due to be pulleddown since the time when John's voice cried in the wilderness,Prepare ye the ways of the Lord,dso that river valleys and hills andmountains should be filled up or laid low, and crooked and roughplaces should be brought into straightness and into level plains—that is, the difficulties of the law into the facilities of the gospel.He has now remembered that the time of the psalm is come:Let us break their bonds off from us, and cast away from us their yoke,enow that the heathen have raged and the peoples imagined vainthings: the kings of the earth have stood up, and the rulers havegathered together into one, against the Lord and against hisChrist: so that now a man is justified by the freedom of faith andnot by the bondage of the law: because the just liveth by faith:fand as the prophet Habakkuk said this first, you have also theapostle expressing agreement with the prophets, as Christ himselfdid. Consequently the faith in which the just man shall live,must be of that God whose also is that law by which the manwho labours in it is not justified. Moreover if in the law there isa curse, but in faith a blessing, you have both of these set beforeyou by the Creator: Behold, he says, I have set before thee cursing andblessing.gYou cannot claim there is opposition: although there isopposition of effects, there is none of authorities, for both effectsare set before them by the one authority. But as the apostle him- self explains how it is that Christ was made a curse for us, it is

V. 3

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

525

evident how well this supports my case, is in fact in accordancewith faith in the Creator. Because the Creator has given judge- ment, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree,hit will not follow fromthat that Christ belongs to another god and for that reason wasalready in the law made accursed by the Creator. How can theCreator have put a curse beforehand upon him he does not knowexists? Yet is it not more reasonable for the Creator to have
sur- rendered his own Son to his own malediction, than to have sub- jected him for malediction to that god of yours, and that for thebenefit of man who belonged to another? Again if in the Creatorthis seems a dreadful act in respect of his Son, no less is it so inyour god: while if it has a reasonable explanation in your god,no less has it in mine, or even more in mine. For it would beeasier to believe that to have provided a blessing for man byputting Christ under a curse was the act of him who had informer time set before man both cursing and blessing, than ofhim who according to you had never made profession of either.So we have received, he says, a spiritual blessing by faith; thefaith, he means, by which, as the Creator puts it, the just manlives. This then is my contention, that the faith belongs to thatGod to whom belongs the original pattern of the grace of faith.And again when he adds, For ye are all the sons of faith, it becomesevident how much before this the heretic's diligence has erased,the reference, I mean, to Abraham, in which the apostle affirmsthat we are by faith the sons of Abraham, and in accordancewith that reference he here also has marked us off as sons of faith.Yet how sons of faith? and of whose faith if not Abraham's? Forif Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned for righteousness,and thenceforth he had the right to be called the father of many<gentile> nations: and if we by believing God are the more therebyjustified, as Abraham was, and the more obtain life, as thejust man lives by faith: so it comes about that up above he pro- nounced us sons of Abraham, as the father of faith, and heresons of faith, that by which Abraham had received the promiseof being the father of the gentiles. In this very fact of dissociatingfaith from circumcision, was not his purpose to constitute us sonsof Abraham, of him who had believed while his body was stillunmutilated? So then the faith of one god cannot obtain ad- mittance to the rule laid down by another God, so as to credit

V. 4

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

527

believers with righteousness, cause the just to have life, and callthe gentiles sons of faith. The whole of this belongs to that Godin whose revelation it has already for a long time been known.

4. [Gal. 4-6.] Involved in the same reference to Abraham—andyet the sequence of thought shows him wrong—Istill, he says,speak after the manner of a man: so long as we were children we wereplaced under the elements of the world, so as to be in bondage to them. Yetthis is not spoken in human fashion; it is not an illustration, butthe truth. For what young child—young in mind, at least, asthe gentiles are—is not subject to those elements of the worldwhich he looks up to instead of God? But it was in human fashionthat the apostle said, After the manner of a man, and continued, Yeteven a man's testament no man setteth aside or addeth thereto: for by theexample of a man's testament, which is permanently valid, hefound security for the testament of God. To Abraham were thepromises spoken, and to his seed. He said not 'seeds' as though theywere many, but 'seed', as of one, and that is Christ. Let Marcion'seraser be ashamed of itself: except that it is superfluous for meto discuss the passages he has left out, since my case is strongerif he is shown wrong by those he has retained. But when it cameabout that the time was fulfilled, God sent his Son—evidently that Godwho is the God even of those times of which the ages consist, whoalso has ordained the signs of the times, suns and moons andconstellations and stars, and in short has both foreordained andforetold the revelation of his own Son at the far end of the times:In the last days the mountain of the Lord shall be made manifest,aand, Inthe last days I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh,bas Joel has it.To have waited for the time to be fulfilled was characteristic ofhim to whom belonged the end of time, as also its beginning. Butthat leisured god of yours, who has never either done anythingor prophesied anything, and so knows nothing of any time, whathas he ever done to cause time to be fulfilled, and to justify wait- ing for its
fulfilment? If he has done nothing, it was foolish enoughthat he waited for the Creator's times, and thus did service to theCreator. But to what purpose did he send his Son? To redeemthem that were under the law, that is, to make crooked places into astraight way, and rough places into smooth ways, as Isaiah says,cso that old things might pass away and new things might arise,a new law out of Sion and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem,d

826805 T

V. 4

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

529

and that we might receive the adoption of sons, we the gentiles, whoonce were not sons: and he himself will be a light of the gentiles,and in his name shall the gentiles hope.e And so as to make itcertain that we are God's sons, he hath sent his own Spirit into ourhearts, crying Abba, Father: for he says, In the last days I will pour outof my Spirit upon all flesh.fBy whose grace, if not his whose wasthe promise of grace? Who is the Father, if not he who was alsothe Maker? So then after these riches there had to be no turningback to the weak and beggarly elements. Now among Romanstoo the custom is for early instruction to be called elements. Soit was not his wish, by derogatory language about the elementsof the world, to alienate people from the God of those elements:even if, when he said just now, If therefore ye do service to these whichby nature are no gods, he was castigating the error of physical, ornatural, superstition which puts the elements in the place ofGod, not even so did he censure the God of those elements. Butwhat he wishes to be understood by 'elements', that early school- ing in the law, he himself makes clear: Ye observe days and monthsand times and years—and sabbaths, I suppose, and meagre suppers,1and fasts, and great days. For there was need for them to ceasefrom these too, as also from circumcision: for the Creator hadso decreed, when he spoke by Isaiah, Your new moons and sabbathsand great day I cannot away with: your fasting and workless days andfeast days my soul hateth:gand by Amos, Ihate, I have rejected, yourfeast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies:halso byHosea, Iwill also cause all her mirths to cease, and her feast days andsabbaths and new moons and all her solemn assemblies.iDid he, you ask,wipe out observances he himself had appointed? Better he thansomeone else: else if it were some other, then that other supportedthe Creator's judgement, by abolishing observances the Creatorhad himself passed sentence on. But this is not the place for askingwhy the Creator has broken down his own laws: it is enough thatwe have proved he intended to break them down, so as to put itbeyond doubt that the apostle has set up no rules in oppositionto the Creator, since this removal of the law was the Creator'sintention. Now it does happen to thieves that something let fallfrom their booty turns to evidence against them: and so I thinkMarcion has left behind him this final reference to Abraham—though none had more need of removal—even if he has changed

4. 1 Those on the evening before the sabbath.

V. 4

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

531

it a little. For if Abraham had two sons, one by a bondmaid and theother by a free woman, but he that was by the bondmaid was bom afterthe flesh, while he that was by the free woman was by promise: whichthings are allegorical, which means, indicative of something else :for these are two testaments—or two revelations, as I see they havetranslated it—the one from Mount Sinai referring to the synagogueof the Jews, which according to the law gendereth to bondage: theother gendering above all principality, power, and domination,and every name that is named not only in this world but alsoin that which is to come:j for she is our mother, that holy church, inwhom we have expressed our faith: and consequently he adds,So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.In all this the apostle has clearly shown that the noble dignityof Christianity has its allegorical type and figure in the son ofAbraham born of a free woman, while the legal bondage ofJudaism has its type in the son of the bondmaid: and consequently,that both the dispensations derive from that God with whom wehave found the outline sketch of both the dispensations. And thevery fact that he speaks of that liberty wherewith Christ hath made usfree—does not this establish the fact that he who sets free is hewho has been the possessor? Not even Galba ever set free anotherman's slaves:2 he would find it easier to let free men out of prison.So then liberty will be a boon from him under whom there hasbeen the servitude of the law. And rightly. It was not seemly thatmen set free should again be bound under the yoke of servitudewhich is the law: for the psalm had now been fulfilled, Let usbreak their bonds asunder, and cast away their yoke from us, after therulers were assembled into one against the Lord and against his Christ.kAs then they were now exempt from bondage, he was insistenton rubbing off from them the brand-mark of bondage, which wascircumcision: and this by the authority of the prophets' preach- ing, for he remembered it was said by Jeremiah, And be circumcisedin the foreskins of your heart:1because Moses also said, Circumcisethe hardness of your heart,mwhich means, not your flesh. Againif he was rejecting circumcision because he was the agent of a

4. 2 Suetonius, Galba 9 sq., relates that Galba, while still in Spain, on receivingan invitation to make himself 'defender of the human race', mounted the tribunalas though for the ceremony of manumission, and in dramatic form manu- mitted the statues and portraits of persons condemned and murdered byNero: also, Nero 57, that on the report of Nero's death Roman citizens ranabout the streets wearing freedmen's caps.

V. 4

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

533

different god, why does he deny that uncircumcision is of anyavail in Christ, any more than circumcision is? For he ought tohave done honour to the opposite of the circumcision he wasattacking, if he were the agent of a god opposed to circumcision.But seeing that both circumcision and uncircumcision owed theirorigin to the one God, therefore both of them became of no availin Christ, because faith had gained the preference—that faith ofwhich it was written, And in his name shall the gentiles believe,nthatfaith which he says is perfected by love, and so again shows that itbelongs to the Creator. If he means the love which is towardsGod, the Creator also says so: Thou shalt love God with all thy heartand all thy soul and all thy strength:oor else if he means towards one'sneighbour, And thy neighbour as thyself,pis the Creator's command.But he that troubleth you shall bear his judgement. By which god?By that supremely good one? But that one does not judge. Bythe Creator? But not even he will judge an advocate of circum- cision. But if there is to be no other who can judge except theCreator, then the only one who can judge the upholders of thelaw is he who is himself determined upon its going into abeyance.What now if he also confirms the law, to the extent to which hemust? For all the law, he says, has been fulfilled in you: thou shaltlove thy neighbour as thyself.qOr else if he wishes 'has been fulfilled'to be taken to mean that it no longer needs to be fulfilled, then itis not his wish that I should love my neighbour as myself—sothat this too will have gone into abeyance along with the law.But no, there will always be the need to continue in this com- mandment. And so the Creator's law meets with approval evenfrom his adversary, and has acquired from him not dispossessionbut compression, the whole sum of it being now reduced to onecommandment. And this again is an act more appropriate to theauthor of the law than to any other. Consequently when he says,Bear ye one another's burdens, and so ye shall fulfil the law of Christ, asthis cannot be done unless a man loves his neighbour as himself,it becomes evident that Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, inwhich Bear ye one another's burdens is included, is the law of Christ,and that this is the Creator's, and Christ therefore belongs to theCreator in that the Creator's law is Christ's. Te are astray: Godis not mocked. And yet Marcion's god can be mocked, because hehas not learned how to be angry or to take vengeance. For whata man soweth, that shall he also reap: thus it is that the God of

V. 5

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

535

retribution and judgement utters a threat. But let us not becomeweary in well-doing, and, While we have time let us work that which isgood: deny that it was the Creator who gave orders to do good,and look out for opposite teaching from your opposite divinity.But if he makes a promise of retribution, from the same Godwill come the harvest both of corruption and of life. Yet in hisown time we shall reap, because the Preacher also says, There willbe a time for every matter.rBut even to me, the Creator's servant,the world is crucified, though not the God of the world, and I to theworld, though not to the God of the world. For he wrote 'world'with reference to its manner of life and conduct, for by the re- nunciation of it we are crucified to it and die to it, and it to us.He calls them persecutors of Christ. But when he adds that hebears in his body the brand-marks of Christ—evidently bodilymarks are intended—he asserts that the flesh of Christ, whosebodily brand-marks he draws attention to, is no putative fleshbut true flesh in full reality.

5. On the First Epistle to the Corinthians.1 [1 Cor. 1.] My intro- duction to the previous epistle led me away from discussion ofits superscription: for I was sure it could be discussed in someother connection, it being his usual one, the same in all his epistles.I pass over the fact that he does not begin by wishing health tothose to whom he writes, but grace and peace. What had he stillto do with Jewish custom, if he was the destroyer of Judaism? Foreven today the Jews salute one another in the name of peace, andof old in the scriptures such was their form of greeting. But I dounderstand how he claimed as his function the preaching of theCreator: How early are the feet of them that preach the gospel of goodthings, that preach the gospel of peace:afor as a preacher of good things,which means the grace of God, he knew how greatly was peaceto be preferred. When he reports these as coming from God ourFather and the Lord Jesus, making use of ordinary expressionssuch as are appropriate to our belief as well as yours, I do notthink one can discern who is preached as God the Father, andas the Lord Jesus, except from the context, by asking to whom itbest applies. First then I claim that none can be acknowledgedas Father <and> Lord except the Creator and upholder of manand of the universe: also that to the Father the name of Lord is

5. 1 See Appendix 2.

V. 5

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

537

added by reason of his authority: and this name the Son alsoobtains from the Father. Also I claim that grace and peace be- long not only to him by whom their proclamation was made,but come from one who has been offended. For graceonly comes after offence, and peace after war. But the peopleof Israel by transgression against instruction, and the wholeI human race by shutting their eyes to nature, had both sinnedand rebelled against the Creator: whereas Marcion's god wasI incapable of taking offence, both because he was not known, andbecause he cannot be angry. What grace then can there be fromone who has taken no offence? or what peace from one againstwhom no one has rebelled? He says the cross of Christ is foolish- ness to such as are to perish, but to such as are to obtain salvationit is the power and the wisdom of God: and to show whence thiscame about, he adds For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of thewise, and will make of no account the prudence of the prudent.bIf theseare the Creator's words, and it is he who reckons for foolishnessI the things which pertain to the plea of the cross, then the cross,I and Christ by reason of the cross, will pertain to the Creator bywhom was foretold that which pertains to the cross. Or else, if<your suggestion is that> the Creator, being hostile, has with thisintent deprived men of wisdom, that the cross of his adversary'sChrist should be accounted foolishness,—can the Creator by anymeans have made any pronouncement with reference to the crossof a Christ not his own, of whom, while he was foretelling, hewas still ignorant? And again why, in the presence of a godsupremely good and of abundant mercy, do some obtain salva- tion through believing that the cross is the power and wisdom ofGod, while others obtain perdition, those to whom the cross ofChrist is accounted foolishness? Surely it means that the Creatorhas punished by the loss of wisdom and prudence some offenceboth of Israel and of the human race. The words that follow willconfirm this, when he asks, Hath not God made foolish the wisdomof the world? and when here again he adds the reason: Because inthe wisdom of God the world by wisdom understood not God, God thoughtit good by the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe. ButI must first come to a decision about 'world', inasmuch as herein particular these very acute heretics interpret 'world' by 'lordof the world', whereas we understand by it the man who is in

V. 5

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

539

the world, by that ordinary manner of human speech by whichwe frequently put that which contains for that which is containedin it—the circus shouted out, the hustings have spoken, the law-court was excited—meaning, the people who did things inthose places. And so because the man, not the god, of the worldin wisdom knew not God, whom he ought to have known—theJew in the wisdom of the scriptures, and every nation in thewisdom of his works—therefore God, the same God who in hisown wisdom had not been known, determined by foolishness toshock men's wisdom, by saving all such as believe in the foolishpreaching of the cross: Because the Jews are asking for signs, thoughthey ought by now to be quite sure about God, and the Greeks areseeking after wisdom, because indeed they do set up their own wis- dom, not God's. But if it were a new god being preached, whatwrong had the Jews done in asking for signs by which to believe,or the Greeks in searching for wisdom in which they might bypreference believe? So also the actual repayment both to Jewsand Greeks proves God a zealous God and a judge, who byvirtue of hostile and judicial retribution has made foolish thewisdom of the world. But if the pleadings belong to him whosescriptures are adduced in evidence, then when the apostle dis- courses of the Creator not being understood he is certainly claim- ing that the Creator ought to have been understood. Even insaying that his preaching of Christ is to the Jews an offence, hesets his seal on the Creator's prophecy about that, who speaks byIsaiah, Behold I have placed in Sion a stone of stumbling and a rock ofoffence? But the rock was Christ.dEven Marcion has kept that. Butwhat is that foolish thing of God which is wiser than men, if notthe cross and the death of Christ? What is that weak thing ofGod which is stronger than man, if not God's birth, and hishuman flesh? But if Christ was neither born of a virgin norcomposed of flesh, and consequently has not truly suffered to theend either the cross or death, there was nothing in that eitherfoolish or weak: and in that case God has not chosen the foolishthings of the world to confound its wisdom, nor has God chosenthe weak things of the world to confound the strong, nor thingsdishonourable and little and contemptible, things which are not,that is, which do not truly exist, to confound the things which are,that is, which do truly exist. For nothing ordained by God is

V. 6

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

541

really small and ignoble and contemptible, but <only> that <or- dained> by man. But in the Creator's view even <his> old thingscan be reckoned for foolishness and weakness and dishonour andlittleness and contempt. What is more foolish, what more weak,than the demand by God of bloody sacrifices and the stench ofwhole burnt offerings? What is weaker than the cleansing ofvessels and couches? What more dishonourable than the furtherdespoiling of the flesh which has already enough to be ashamedof? What more lowly than the demand of eye for eye? What morecontemptible than the distinction of meats? As far as I know,the whole Old Testament is a matter of scorn to every heretic:for God hath chosen the foolish things of the world, that he may con- found its wisdom—Marcion's god has nothing such, for his opposi- tion does not involve the confutation of opposites by opposites—that no flesh should glory, but that, as it is written, He that glorieth let himglory in the Lord. Which Lord? Evidently him who gave this instruc- tion—unless indeed the Creator gave instruction to glory in thegod of Marcion.

6. [1 Cor. 2 and 3.] And so throughout this passage he makes itplain which God's wisdom he is speaking among them that areperfect—his in fact who has taken away the wisdom of the wise,and made the prudence of the prudent of none effect, who hasmade foolish the wisdom of the world, by choosing its foolishthings and ordaining them for salvation. This wisdom which hesays was kept secret is that which has been in things foolish andlittle and dishonourable, which has also been hidden underfigures, both allegories and enigmas, but was afterwards to berevealed in Christ who was set for a light of the gentiles by thatCreator who by the voice of Isaiah promises that he will open upinvisible and secret treasures.a For that anything should have beenkept hidden by that god who has never done anything at all underwhich one might suppose he had hidden something, is incredibleenough: he himself, if he did exist, could not have remainedhidden: far less could any mysteries of his. The Creator howeveris himself as well known as those mysteries of his which in Israelran in open succession, though in the shade in respect of whatthey signified, mysteries in which was hidden that wisdom of Godwhich in its own time was to be spoken among those that were

V. 6

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

543

perfect, but had been ordained in the purpose of God before theages. And whose ages, if not the Creator's? For if the ages areconstructed of times, and times are compounded of days andmonths and years, and days and months and years are markedout by the Creator's suns and moons and stars placed by him forthis purpose—for he says, They shall be for signs of months andyearsb—then it is clear that the ages belong to the Creator, and thateverything which it says was ordained before the ages belongs tono other than him to whom the ages belong. Or else let Marcionprove that his god has any ages: let him point to some actualworld in which ages may be counted—some, so to speak, con- tainer of times—let him point to some signs, or the ordering ofthem. If he has nothing to show, I turn back to ask the question,Then how did he before the Creator's ages ordain our glory? Hecould be thought to have ordained before the ages a glory whichhe had revealed at the outset of an age. But when he does sonow that all the Creator's ages are nearly drawn to an end, itwas in vain that he ordained before the ages, and not rather be- tween the ages, that which he intended to reveal when the ageswere nearly gone. To have been in a hurry with his ordaining isnot the act of one who has been a laggard in his revealing. Tothe Creator however both things are possible, to have ordainedbefore the ages and to have revealed at the end of the ages,because that which he ordained and has revealed, he did in thespace between the ages give preliminary service of in figures andenigmas and allegories. But when, in reference to our glory, headds that none of the princes of this world knew it, because ifthey had known it they would not have crucified the Lord ofglory, the heretic argues that the princes of this world crucifiedthe Lord, the Christ of his other god, so that this too may fallto the discredit of the Creator. Yet I have already shown himby what means our glory must be reckoned to be from theCreator, and he ought to regard it as already settled that thatglory which was kept secret in the Creator was necessarily un- known even to all the virtues and powers of the Creator—becauseeven household servants are not allowed to know the intentionsof their masters—and even less was it known to those apostateangels and the leader of their transgression, the devil, all of whomI should claim were because of their crime even more thoroughly

826805 U

V. 6

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

545

excluded from any cognizance of the Creator's ordinances. Butnow it is not permissible even for me to interpret the princes ofthis world as meaning the virtues and powers of the Creator, onthe ground that to them the apostle imputes ignorance: whileyet according to our gospel even the devil at the temptationknew who Jesus was,c and according to the document you sharewith us the evil spirit knew that he was the holy one of God andwas named Jesus and had come to destroy them.d Also if thatparable of the strong man armed, whom another stronger thanhe has overcome, and has taken possession of his goods,e is, asMarcion has it, taken for a parable of the Creator, in that casethe Creator could no longer have remained in ignorance of yourgod of glory while he was being overcome by him: nor could hehave hanged upon a cross that one against whom his strengthwas of no avail: and so it remains for me to argue that the virtuesand powers of the Creator did know, and did crucify the God ofglory, their own Christ, with that desperation and overflowingof wickedness with which also slaves steeped in villainy do nothesitate to murder their masters: for in the gospel as I have it, itis written that Satan entered into Judas,f But according toMarcion not even the apostle in this passage permits of ignoranceagainst the Lord of glory being ascribed to the powers of theCreator, because in effect he will not have it that they are referredto as the princes of this world. And so, as it appears that he wasnot speaking of spiritual princes, then it was secular princes hemeant, the princely people—which was not reckoned among thenations—and its rulers, the king Herod, and even Pilate, andhim in whom sat in authority the major principality of this world,the majesty of Rome. In such a way, while the argumentationsof the opposite faction are pulled down, my own expositions arebuilt up. But you still claim that our glory belongs to your god andhas been kept secret with him. Why then does your god, likethe apostle, still rest his case upon the same document? Whathas he, here and everywhere, to do with the statements of theprophets? For who hath known the mind of the Lord, and who hath beenhis counsellor?gIsaiah said it. What has he to do with my God'sevidences? For when he declares himself a wise master-builder,by this term we find indicated, by the Creator in Isaiah, the one

V. 7

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

547

who marks out the limits set by God's law of conduct: for he says,Iwill take away from Judaea, among other matters, even the wisemaster-builder.hAnd was not that a presage of Paul himself, whowas destined to be taken away from Judaea, which means Judaism,for the building up of Christendom? For he was to lay that oneand only foundation which is Christ. Indeed of this too theCreator speaks, by the same prophet: Behold I insert into the founda- tions of Sion a stone precious (and) honourable, and he that believeth init shall not be put to shame.iUnless perhaps God was professinghimself the fabricator of some terrestrial work, so that it was nothis own Christ he indicated as the one who was to be the founda- tion of those who believe in him. And upon this according as eachman builds, worthy or unworthy doctrine, if his work is to beapproved by fire, if his wages are to be paid to him by fire, itbelongs to the Creator: because the judgement by fire is of yoursuperstructure, which <is set> upon his foundation, which means,his Christ. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that theSpirit of God dwelleth in you? If man is both the property and thework and the image and the likeness of the Creator, and is fleshby virtue of the Creator's earth, and soul by virtue of his breath- ing, then Marcion's god is dwelling entirely on someone else'sproperty, if it is not the Creator whose temple we are. But ifanyone destroy the temple of God, he shall be destroyed: by the God ofthe temple. When you threaten him with an avenger, it is theCreator you will be threatening him with. Become fools, that yemay be wise. Why? Because the wisdom of this world is foolishness withGod. Which god? If what has preceded does not constitute aprecedent judgement in favour of my interpretation, well it isthat here again he proceeds, For it is written, He that taketh the wisein their own naughtiness: and again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts ofthe wise, that they are worse than vain.jFor in general we shall makeit a standing rule that <your god> could never have made use ofany sentence of that God whom it was his duty to destroy, with- out thereby giving teaching in his favour. Therefore, he says, letno man glory in a man. And this too is in line with the Creator'sruling: Wretched the man that hath hope in a man,kand, It is better totrust in God than to trust in men,lor, of course, to glory.

7. [1 Cor. 4-10.] He himself will bring to light the hidden things

V. 7

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

549

of darkness—evidently by Christ as agent—who has promisedthat Christ will be a light,a and has declared that he himself isa lantern, searching the heartsb and reins. Praise for each severalman will come from him from whom, as from a judge, will comealso the opposite of praise. Surely, you say, here at least by 'world'he means the god of the world, when he says, We are made a spectacleto the world and to angels and to men, because if by 'world' he hadreferred to the men of the world he would not have gone on tomention 'men'. Nay rather, to deprive you of this argument theHoly Spirit's foresight has indicated in what sense he meantWe are made a spectacle to the world, (namely) the angels who ministerto the world, and the men to whom they minister. Do you thinka man of such strong convictions—I leave the Holy Spirit out ofaccount—especially when writing to his sons whom he had be- gotten in the gospel, would hesitate to name freely the god of theworld, against whom he could not give the impression of preach- ing except by doing so openly? I make no claim that it was by theCreator's lawc that the apostle disapproved of the man who hadhis father's wife: suppose him to have followed the rule of naturalor state religion. But when he sentences him to be delivered untoSatan, he becomes the apparitor of a God who condemns. Passover also what he means by, For the destruction of the flesh, that thespirit may be saved in the day of the Lord, provided you admit thatby destruction of the flesh and saving of the spirit he has spokenas a judge, and that when he orders the wicked person to be putaway from among them, he has in mind one of the Creator'smost regular expressions. Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be anew baking, even as ye are unleavened: so that unleavened bread wasto the Creator a figure of ourselves, and in this sense too Christour Passover was sacrificed. Yet how can Christ be the Passoverexcept that the passover is a figure of Christ because of the simili- tude between the saving blood of the <paschal> lamb and ofChrist? How can he have applied to us and to Christ the likenessesof the Creator's solemnities, if they were not ours already? Intelling us to flee fornication he gives evidence of the resurrectionof the flesh: The body, he says, is not for fornication but for the Lord,and the Lord for the body, as the temple is for God and God for thetemple. Shall the temple then perish for God, and God for the

V. 7

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

551

temple? But you see it written, He that hath raised up the Lord willalso raise us up: in the body also he will raise us up, because thebody is for the Lord and the Lord for the body. And well it is thathe piles it on, know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?What has the heretic to say? Shall those members of Christ notrise again, which are ours no longer? For we have been boughtat a great price. Evidently at no price at all if Christ was aphantasm without any corporal assets which he could pay overas the purchase-price for our bodies. So then Christ did possesssomething to redeem us with, and since in fact he has at somegreat price redeemed these bodies against which we are not tocommit fornication because they are now not ours but Christ's,he will surely bring to salvation for himself possessions he hasacquired at so great a cost. And besides, how can we glorify God,and how can we exalt him, in a body meant for destruction ? Therefollows a discussion of matrimony, which Marcion, of strongercharacter than the apostle, forbids. For although the apostletakes continency for the greater good, he still allows marriageto be contracted and put to use, even advising continuance inpreference to separation. It is true that Christ forbids divorce,while Moses allows it. When Marcion deprives his faithful—I saynothing of his catechumens—of cohabitation in any form, demand- ing divorce even before marriage, whose judgement does he follow,Moses' or Christ's? And yet when Christ too commands the wifenot to depart from her husband, or, if she does depart, to remainunmarried or be reconciled to her husband, he gives permissionfor the divorce which he does not out and out prohibit, and setshis approval on the matrimony of which from the first he forbidsthe dissolution, and if perhaps there has been dissolution desiresits restoration. Again, what reasons does he give for continency?Because the time is short. I had thought, 'because there is a differentgod in Christ'. And yet, he who causes the shortening of the tunemust also be the cause of that which is contingent on the shorten- ing of the time. No man guides his actions by another's time. Apetty sort of god you say yours is, Marcion, a god in some sortof constraint to the Creator's tune. Certainly when he rules thata woman may marry only in the Lord, so that no believer maycontract matrimony with a heathen, he upholds the Creator'slaw, who always and everywhere forbids marriage with foreigners.But, though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth—

V. 7

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

553

it is evident how he means this: not that there really are, butbecause there are those that are called so, when they are not.He begins with idols his intended discussion of things offered toidols: We know that an idol is nothing. But even Marcion does notdeny that the Creator is a God: so that we cannot suppose theapostle includes the Creator among those which are called godsand yet are not, because even if they had been, yet to us therewould be one God, the Father. And from whom have we allthings, if not from him whose are all things? And what are these?You have it in what he has said already: All things are yours,whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or thingspresent or things to come. Thus he makes the Creator the God of allmen and things, for from him are the world and life and death,and these cannot belong to that other god. Therefore from him,among those all things, is Christ. When giving instruction thatevery man's duty is to live by his own work, he had begun wellenough by citing the example of soldiers and flock-masters andhusbandmen: but divine authority was not there in evidence.He had therefore no choice but to adduce that law of the Creatorwhich he was for abolishing: for he had no such law of his owngod. Thou shalt not, he says, muzzle the ox that is threshing, and adds,Is God concerned about oxen ? Even about oxen is he kind, for men'ssake? Yes, for our sakes, he says, it is written. Consequently, as ourclaim is, this is his proof that the law is allegorical, lending itssupport to those who make their living out of the gospel, and thattherefore the preachers of the gospel belong to that same Godwhose is the law which has made provision for them: this whenhe says, Yes, for our sakes it is written. But he would not avail himselfof the law's permission, preferring to work without wages. Andthis he has accounted to his own glorying, which he says no manshall make void: yet not to the discrediting of the law, which heapproves of another man making use of. Now see how in hisblindness Marcion stumbles at that rock of which our fathersdrank in the wilderness: for if that rock was Christ, and Christis the Creator's, as also Israel was, with what right does he ex- pound this as a type of a different god's religion? Or was it notwith express intent to teach that those ancient things lookedfiguratively towards Christ who was to have his descent fromthose men? Yes, for when he proposes to narrate the subsequenthistory of that people, he begins by saying, Now these things were

V. 8

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

555

done as examples for us. Tell me, were they done by the Creatoras examples for the men of some other god, an unknown one?or does that other god borrow them as examples from anotherGod, his opponent? Is he attracting me to himself through fearssuggested by the God from whom he is withdrawing my allegiance ?Is his adversary going to put me in a better relationship withhim? If I now commit the same sins as Israel committed, shallI receive the same treatment, or shall I not? If not the same,vainly does he set before me terrors I am not going to experience.But from whom must I expect such treatment? If from the Creator,will they be such things as it beseems him to inflict? Yet how canit be that he, a jealous God, should punish a sinner against hisopponent, and not on the contrary prefer to encourage him?If from that other god—yet he is incapable of punishing. Thusthe apostle's entire treatment of this subject has no rational con- sistency, unless it refers to the Creator's rules of conduct. Andonce more, at the end there is correspondence with the beginning:Mow in whatsoever way these things happened to them, they are writtenfor our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come. Behold thisCreator, who has foreknowledge of the other god's Christians,and is the admonisher of them. I pass over at times the parallelsof matters already discussed, while some things I dispatch withbrevity. It is a great argument for that other god, this permissionto use meats contrary to the law: as though we too did not claimthat the burdens of the law have been relaxed, though by himwho imposed them, him who promised renewal. So he who for- bade certain foods, has now restored that which he granted atthe beginning. If however it had been some other god, an over-thrower of our God, his very first prohibition would have beenagainst his men living on his opponent's provisions.

8. [1 Cor. 11-14.] The head of a man is Christ. Which Christ? Theone who is not the man's author? Now he has written 'head'with reference to authority, and authority can belong to no otherthan the author. Of whose man then is he the head? Undoubtedlythe man of whom he goes on to say, For the man ought not to coverhis head, since he is the image of God. If therefore he is the image ofthe Creator—for it was he who, with a view to Christ his Wordsubsequently becoming Man, said, Let us make man unto our imageand likeness—how can I have as head some other, and not him

V. 8

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

557

whose image I am? For since I am the image of the Creator,there is no room in me for any other head. Also, why shall awoman need to have power upon her head? If it is because shewas taken out of the man, and was made for the man's sakeaccording to the Creator's ordinance, in this case too the apostlehas paid respect to the moral law of him by whose ordinance heexplains the purposes of that law. He adds also, Because of theangels. Which? or rather, whose? If those which revolted from theCreator, with good reason, so that the woman's face, which wasthe cause of their offence, should wear, as a sort of mark, thisgarment of humility and eclipsing of beauty. If however he meansthe angels of your other god—what has he to fear, when evenMarcionites have no hankering after women? I have alreadyseveral times observed that by the apostle heresies are set downas an evil thing among things evil, and that those persons are tobe understood as meeting with approval who flee from heresiesas an evil thing. And further, I have already,1 in discussing thegospel, by the sacrament of the Bread and the Cup, given proofof the verity of our Lord's Body and Blood, as opposed to Mar-cion's phantasm. Also that every mention of judgement hasreference to the Creator as the God who is a Judge, has beendiscussed almost everywhere in this work. I proceed to say ofspiritual (gifts), that these too were promised by the Creatorwith reference to Christ, under that general rule—an entirelyjust one, I suggest—by which actual fulfilment must be regardedas the function of no other than the one whose the promise isshown to have been. Isaiah made the announcement, There shallcome forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall come up fromthe root, and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him. He goes on torecount its forms: The Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spiritof counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and godliness; the Spiritof the fear of God shall fill him.aThus in the figure of a flower hepointed to Christ who was to rise up out of the rod which hadcome forth from the root of Jesse—that is, the virgin of theoffspring of David the son of Jesse: and in that Christ the entiresubstance of the Spirit was to come to rest.2 Not that it was to comeas a later addition to him who even before his incarnation hasalways been the Spirit of God—so that you may not use this asan argument that this prophecy refers to the Christ who as a

8. 1 i.e. at IV. 40. 2On prophecy terminating in Christ, IV. 18. 4.

V. 8

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

559

mere man, solely of descent from David, will in the future <yousay> acquire the spirit of his own God—but because from themoment that flower bloomed in the flesh assumed from the stockof David, the entire operation of spiritual grace was to come torest in him and, as far as the Jews were concerned, to come to anend. And the facts themselves bear witness to this, since from thenonwards the Spirit of the Creator no longer breathes among them,while from Judaea has been taken away the wise and prudentmaster-builder, the counsellor and the prophet:b so that this isthe meaning of, The law and the prophets were until John.cHear nowin what terms he has made the statement that from Christ takenup into heaven gifts of grace would come. He hath gone up intothe height, that is, into heaven: he hath led captivity captive, meaning,death and human bondage: he hath given gifts to the sons of men,dthose free gifts which we call charismata. A graceful touch, thathe says 'sons of men', and not just generally 'men', pointing tous as the sons of men, of those who are truly men, the apostles:for he says, In the gospel I have begotten you, and, O my sons, whomfor a second time I bring to birth.eSo now there is that promise ofthe Spirit made in general terms by Joel: In the last days I willpour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh, and their sons and daughters shallprophesy, and upon my servants and handmaids I will pour forth of mySpirit.fAnd in fact if it was for the last days that the Creatorpromised the grace of the Spirit, while in the last days Christhas appeared as dispenser of spiritual things—for the apostle says,But when the time was fulfilled God sent his Son,gand again, Becausethe time is now short—it is clear also from that foretelling of thelast times that this grace of the Spirit appertains to the Christof him who foretold it. Set side by side the apostle's details andthose of Isaiah:hTo one, he says, is given by the Spirit the word ofwisdom, so at once Isaiah has set down, The Spirit of wisdom:to another the word of knowledge, and this must be the word ofunderstanding and counsel: to another faith, by the same Spirit, whichmust mean the Spirit of godliness and the fear of God: to another thegift of healings, to another miracles, and this will be the Spirit of might:to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another diversekinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues, which willbe the Spirit of knowledge. See how both when he sets out theapportionments of the one Spirit and when he expounds their

826805 X

V. 8

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

561

particular bearing, the apostle is in full agreement with theprophet. This I affirm: the fact that he has brought the unity ofour body, in its many diverse members, into comparison with thecompact structure of the various spiritual gifts, shows that thereis one and the same Lord both of the human body and of theHoly Spirit, that Lord who was unwilling that there should be ina body of spirit any deserving of such spiritual gifts as he has notlocated also in the human body: that Lord who by that first andgreat commandment on which Christ also set his approval, Thoushalt love the Lord with all thy heart and all thy strength and all thy soul,and thy neighbour as thyself,itaught the apostle that charity mustbe more highly regarded than all spiritual gifts. And as he putsit on record that it is written in the law that the Creator willspeak with other tongues and other lips, since with this referencehe confirms <the legitimacy of> the gift of tongues, here again hecannot be supposed to have used the Creator's prophecy to expressapproval of a different god's spiritual gift. Once more, when heenjoins upon women silence in the church, that they are not tospeak, at all events with the idea of learning—though he hasalready shown that even they have the right to prophesy, sincehe insists that a woman must be veiled, even when prophesying—it was from the law that he received authority for putting thewoman in subjection,j that law which, let me say it once for all,<you suppose> he had no right to take note of except for its destruc- tion. So now, to leave this question of spiritual gifts, the factsthemselves will be called upon to prove which of us is makingrash claims for his god, and whether it can be alleged in oppositionto my statement of claim, that even though the Creator haspromised these for some Christ of his not yet revealed, becausehe is intended for the Jews alone, they will in their own time andin their own Christ and in their own people have their ownoperations. So then let Marcion put in evidence any gifts thereare of his god, any prophets, provided they have spoken notby human emotion but by God's spirit, who have foretold thingsto come, and also made manifest the secrets of the heart: let himproduce some psalm, some vision, some prayer, so long as it isa spiritual one, in ecstasy, which means abeyance of mind, ifthere is added also an interpretation of the tongue: let him alsoprove to me that in his presence some woman has prophesied,some great speaker from among those more saintly females of

V. 9

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

563

his. If all such proofs are more readily put in evidence by me,and are in full concord with the rules and ordinances and regula- tions of the Creator, without doubt both Christ and the Spiritand the apostle will belong to my God. Anyone who cares todemand it has here the statement of my case.

9. [1 Cor. 15: 12-28.] Meanwhile the Marcionite will put inevidence nothing of this nature, for he has no longer courage tostate whose Christ for preference it is who is not yet revealed.Just as mine is to be expected, having been prophesied of sincethe beginning, so his for that reason is not to be expected, seeinghe has not existed since the beginning. We have better right tobelieve in a Christ to come than the heretic in no Christ at all.1We have first to inquire in what sense at that time some saidthere was no resurrection of the dead. Surely in the same senseas even now, seeing that the resurrection of the flesh is alwaysunder denial. The soul indeed certain of the philosophers claimis divine, and vouch for its salvation, and even the common manon that assumption pays respect to his dead, in that he is confidentthat their souls remain: their bodies however are manifestly re- duced to nothing, either immediately by fire or wild beasts, oreven when carefully embalmed at length by passage of time. Ifthen the apostle is refuting people who deny the resurrection ofthe dead, evidently he is defending against them that which theywere denying, which is the resurrection of the flesh.2 There, inbrief, is my answer. What follows is more than was necessary.For the fact that the expression used is 'resurrection of the dead'demands insistence on the precise meaning of the terms. So then'dead' can only be that which is deprived of the soul by whoseenergy it was once alive. It is the body which is deprived of thesoul and by that deprivation becomes dead: so that the term 'dead'applies to the body. So then if the resurrection is of somethingdead, and the dead thing is no other than the body, it will be aresurrection of the body. So too the term 'resurrection' lays claimto no other object than one that has fallen down. The verb 'rise'can be used of something which has in no sense fallen down, some- thing which in the past has always lain there. But 'rise again'applies only to that which has fallen down, since by rising again,

9. 1 The preceding three sentences conclude the argument of Ch. 8.2 On this subject see de res. carnis, particularly chapters 42-54.

V. 9

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

565

because it has fallen down, it is said to experience resurrection:for the syllable 're' is always applied to some act of repetition. Sowe affirm that the body falls down to earth by death, as the factitself bears witness, by the law of God. For it was to the body thatGod said, Earth thou art, and into earth shall thou go:a so that thatwhich is from the earth will go into the earth. The falling downis of that which departs into the earth, the rising again is of thatwhich falls down. Since by man <came> death, by man <came> also theresurrection. Here I find that Christ's body is indicated by the desig- nation 'man', for man consists of body, as I have already severaltimes shown. But if as in Adam we are all brought to death, and inChrist are all brought to life, since in Adam we are broughtto death in the body it follows of necessity that in Christ we arebrought to life in the body. Otherwise the parallel does not hold,if our bringing to life in Christ does not take effect in the samesubstance in which we are brought to death in Adam. But he hasadded here another reference to Christ, which for the sake of thepresent discussion must not be overlooked: for there will be evenmore cogent proof of the resurrection of the flesh, the more Ishow that Christ belongs to that God in whose presence theresurrection of the flesh is an object of belief. When he says, Forhe must reign until he place God's enemies under his feet, here again bythis saying he declares God an avenger, and consequently thesame who has made Christ this promise, Sit thou at my right handuntil I place thine enemies as a footstool of thy feet: the Lord shall sendthe rod of thy power out of Sion, and be the ruler with thee in themidst of thine enemies.bBut it is necessary for me to claim for thesupport of my point of view those scriptures of which eventhe Jews attempt to deprive us. These say that he composed thispsalm with reference to Hezekiah, because it was he who set histhrone at the right side of the temple, and because God turnedback his enemies and consumed them: and therefore again whatfollows, Before the dawn out of the womb have I begotten thee,calsoapplies to Hezekiah, and to Hezekiah's nativity. We produce thegospels—of their credibility we must at least in the course of thislong work have given these people some assurance—which makeit clear that our Lord was born at night, which is the meaningof before the dawn, indicated even more clearly by the star, andby the evidence of the angel who at night reported to the shep- herds that Christ had just then been born, and by the place

V. 9

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

567

of his birth, since an inn is where people come together at night.Perhaps also there was a mystic meaning in Christ being bornat night, to be himself the light of truth to the darkness ofignorance. Also God would not have said, Ihave begotten thee,except to a real son. For although it was with reference to thewhole nation that he said, I have begotten sons,dhe did not go onto say, Out of the womb. But why did he go on to say Out of thewomb, quite unnecessarily, as though there were any doubt thatany one of mankind was born out of a womb, unless because theSpirit intended it to have a more subtle reference to Christ—Out of the womb have I begotten thee, that is, 'out of the womb alone',without the seed of a man—ascribing to the flesh that which isfrom the womb, to the spirit that which is from himself. To thisis added: Thou art a priest for ever.eBut Hezekiah was not a priest:and even if he had been, it would not have been 'for ever'.According to the order of Melchizedek,ehe says. What had Hezekiahto do with Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High, who himselfwas not circumcised, yet on accepting the offering of tithesblessed Abrahamfwho was circumcised?3 But to Christ the orderof Melchizedek will be applicable, for Christ, the particular andlegitimate minister of God, the pontifex of the uncircumcisedpriesthood, was there established among the gentiles from whomhe was destined to find better acceptance, and will when he comesat the last time vouchsafe acceptance and blessing to the circum- cision, the offspring of Abraham, which will at long last acknow- ledge him. There is also another psalm which begins, O God,give thy judgement unto the king, to Christ who is to become a king:and thy righteousness unto the king's son,gthat is, to Christ's people—for those reborn in him are his sons. Yet this psalm too will bealleged to prophesy of Solomon. But must not those expressionswhich are appropriate only to Christ make it plain that the restalso apply to Christ and not to Solomon? He cometh down, it says,like rain on to a fleece of wool, even as the drops that water the earth,hdescribing his quiet and imperceptible descent from heaven intothe flesh. As for Solomon, although he did come down fromsomewhere, yet it was not like the rain, because it was not out ofheaven. But I will set out all the more straightforward passages.His dominion, it says, shall be from the one sea to the other, and from

9. 3 When Abraham met with Melchizedek (Gen. 14) he was still uncircum- cised. The same mistake was made by Justin, dial. 33.

V. 10

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

569

the flood unto the world's ends. This has been granted to Christ alone,whereas Solomon had command only of that tiny country ofJudaea. All kings shall give him worship: whom do all worship,except Christ? And all the gentiles shall do him service: whom, exceptChrist? Let his name remain for ever: whose name is eternal, exceptChrist's? His name shall remain before the sun, for the Word of God,which is Christ, was before the sun. And in him shall all the nationsbe blessed: in Solomon no gentile nation is blessed, but in Christevery one of them. What again, if this psalm also proves he isGod? And they shall call him blessed: because, Blessed is the Lord Godof Israel, who only doeth wondrous things: blessed is the name of hisglory, and the whole earth shall be filled with his glory. Solomon onthe other hand, I boldly say, lost even that glory which he had inGod when he was dragged the whole way into idolatry by hiswife. And so when this too is written down in the middle of thepsalm, His enemies shall lick the dust,ibeing put underneath hisfeet, it will have application to that for which I have both quotedthis psalm and claimed it in support of my position: and so Ishall have made out my case that the glory of his kingdom andthe subjection of his enemies are in accordance with the Creator'sdesign, and I shall establish my further claim that there is noroom for belief in any other Christ than the Creator's.

10. [1 Cor. 15: 29-58.] Let us return now to the resurrection.I have already, in opposition to all sorts of heretics, given thissufficient attention in a volume of its own:1 though here againI do not neglect it, for the benefit of people unaware of that littlework. What, he asks, shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if thedead rise not? That practice must speak for itself. Perhaps thekalends of February will answer him: pray for the dead.2 Abstainthen from at once blaming the apostle as either having recentlyinvented this or given it his approval, with intent to establishthe resurrection of the flesh more firmly in that those who withoutany effect were having themselves baptized for the dead were

10. 1 The two treatises, de carne Christi and de res. carnis, were written to contro- vert all those who, denying that the human body can partake of salvation,held docetic views of the humanity of Christ. Such were Marcionites, Apelleasts,Valentinians, and gnostics of every sort.

2 'Kalends of February' stands by metonymy for the whole month, duringwhich, but particularly on the 21st, honour was paid to the tombs of ancestorsand offerings made to their manes: Ovid, Fasti ii. 533 sqq.

V. 10

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

571

doing so by faith in the resurrection. We see him in anothercontext setting a limit, of one baptism.a Consequently, to bebaptized for the dead is to be baptized for bodies: for I haveshown that what was dead is the body. What shall they do whoare baptized for bodies, if bodies do not rise again? And so withreason we here take our stand, to let the apostle introduce hissecond point of discussion, this too with reference to the body.But some men will say, How will the dead rise again ? And with whatbody will they come? For after the defence of the resurrection,which was under denial, his next step was to discuss those attri- butes of the body, which were not open to view. But concerningthese we have to join issue with other opponents: for since Mar-cion entirely refuses to admit the resurrection of the flesh, promisingsalvation to the soul alone, he makes this a question not of attri- butes but of substance. For all that, he is most evidently dis- credited by the things the apostle says with reference to theattributes of the body for the benefit of those who do ask, Howwill the dead rise again, and with what body will they come ? For hehas already declared that the body will rise again, by havingdiscussed the body's attributes. Again if he proposes the examplesof the grain of wheat, or something of that sort, things to whichGod gives a body, as it shall please him, and if he says that toevery seed there is its own particular body, as there is one kindof flesh of men, and another of beasts and birds, and bodiescelestial and terrestrial, and one glory of the sun and another ofthe moon and another of the stars, does he not indicate that thisis a carnal and corporeal resurrection, which he commends bycarnal and corporeal examples? And is he not giving assuranceof it on behalf of that God from whom come the examples headduces? So also, he says, is the resurrection. How so? Like the grainof wheat, as a body it is sown, as a body it rises again. Thus hehas described the dissolution of the body into earth as the sowingof a seed, because it is sown in corruption, <in dishonour, inweakness, but is raised to incorruption>, to honour, to power. Theprocess followed at the resurrection is the act of that same <God>whose was the course taken at the dissolution—-just like the grain.If not, if you take away from the resurrection that body which youhave surrendered to dissolution, what ground can there be forany difference of outcome? And further, if it is sown an animateobject and rises again a spiritual one, although soul or even spirit

V. 10

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

573

possesses some sort of body of its own, so that animate bodymight be taken to mean soul, and spiritual body to mean spirit,he does not by that affirm that at the resurrection the soul willbecome spirit, but that the body, which by being born along withthe soul, and living by means of the soul may properly be termedanimate, will become spiritual when by the spirit it rises again toeternity. In short, since it is not soul, but flesh, that is sown incorruption when dissolved into the earth, then that animate bodycannot be soul, but is that flesh which has been an animate body,so that out of animate the body is made spiritual: as also hesays, a little later, Not first that which is spiritual. In preparationfor this, he has just now observed of Christ himself, The first manAdam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickeningspirit—although this heretic in his folly has refused to let it beso, for instead of 'last Adam' he has written 'last Lord', fearingthat if he treated the Lord as the last Adam we might claim that asthe last Adam Christ belongs to the same God as the first Adam.But the falsification is evident. For why 'first Adam', if not be- cause there is also a last Adam? The only things that admit ofnumerical order are those of equal rank or of the same name orsubstance or author; for even if in things opposed to one anotherthere can be one first and the other last, they do belong to thesame author. If however the author too is a different one, evenhe can be referred to as 'the last': yet that which he has becomethe author of is a first thing, but a last thing if it is on an equalitywith the first. But it is not on an equality with the first, becauseit does not belong to the same author. In the same manner hewill be confuted by the designation 'man'. The first man, he says, isof the earth, earthy: the second is the Lord from heaven. Why 'the second',if he is not a man, as the first was? Or perhaps also the first is'the Lord', if the second is. But it is enough that if in the gospelhe presents Christ as the Son of man, he cannot deny that as man,and in this manhood, he is Adam. The words that follow againbring him into difficulties. For when the apostle says, As is he whois from the earth, that is, the man, such also are the earthy, meaning,the men, it follows that as is the man who is from heaven, such alsoare the men who are from heaven. For it would not have been possiblefor him to contrast with earthy men heavenly beings who werenot men: for his intention was to use their joint possession of thatname to indicate a more accurate distinction between their present

V. 10

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

575

condition and their future expectation. For it is by the present andthe future that he calls them earthy and heavenly, yet both equallymen, who are reckoned either in Adam or in Christ according astheir end will be. And consequently, for an exhortation towardsthe heavenly hope, he says, As we have borne the image of the earthy letus also hear the image of the heavenly, not with reference to any actu- ality of the resurrection, but to conduct in this present life. For hiswords are, Let us bear, not 'we shall bear', in the imperative, not thefuture indicative: for his desire is for us to walk as he himself haswalked, and to depart from the image of the earthy man, the oldman, which is the operation of the flesh. What does he say next?For this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot obtain possession ofthe kingdom of God—meaning those works of flesh and blood whichwhen writing to the Galatians he said could not inherit the king- dom of God:b for his custom in other places besides is to let asubstance stand for the works of that substance, as when he saysthat those who are in the flesh cannot please God.c For when shallwe be able to please God if not while we are in this flesh? Thereis, I suppose, no other time for us to work in. But if, thoughsituated in the flesh, we flee the works of the flesh, then we shallnot be in the flesh, not because we escape from the substance ofthe flesh, but from its defect. But if under the designation 'flesh'it is the works of the flesh, not its substance, that we are bidden todivest ourselves of, it is to the works of the flesh, not the substanceof the flesh, that under the name of flesh the kingdom of God isdenied: for condemnation is passed not on that in which evilis done, but on the evil that is done. To administer poison isa felony, yet the cup in which it is administered is not broughtunder accusation. So also the body is the receptacle of carnalacts, but it is the soul which in the body mixes the poison of thisor that evil deed. If then the soul, the author of the works of theflesh, is to be counted worthy of the kingdom of God through thecleansing of the sins it has committed in the body, how can it bethat the body, a mere servant, is to continue under condemna- tion? Shall the poisoner be acquitted and the cup punished? Forall that, it is not the kingdom of God that we insist on for theflesh, but the resurrection of the substance of it, as it were thedoor of the kingdom by which entry is made. The resurrectionis one thing, the kingdom another: the resurrection comes first,the kingdom afterwards. So we affirm that the flesh rises again,

826805 Y

V. 11

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

577

but obtains the kingdom after being changed. For the dead shallrise again incorruptible, those, it means, who had become corruptwhen their bodies collapsed into destruction: and we shall bechanged, in an instant, in the momentary motion of an eye. For thiscorruptible thing—the apostle was grasping his own body when hespoke—must put on incorruption, and this mortal thing put on immor- tality, so that, in fact, its substance may be made suitable for thekingdom of God. For we shall be as the angels.d Such will bethe change in the flesh—but flesh raised up again. Else if there isgoing to be no flesh, how shall it be clothed upon with incorrup- tion and immortality? So then, made into something else bythat change, it will obtain the kingdom of God, being no longerflesh and blood, but the body which God will have given to it.And so the apostle rightly says, Flesh and blood shall not obtain thekingdom of God, for he ascribes that to the change which ensuesupon the resurrection. So if then will be brought to pass the wordwhich is written in the Creator's scriptures, O death, where is thyvictory, or, thy striving? O death where is thy sting?—and this is aword of the Creator, spoken by the prophete—the fact itself, thekingdom, will belong to him whose word will come to pass inthe kingdom. Nor are his thanks for having enabled us to gainthe victory—over death, he means—addressed to any other godthan the God from whom he has accepted that word of exultationover death, that word of triumph.

11. On the Second Epistle to the Corinthians.1 [2 Cor. 1-4.] Ifthrough the fault of men led astray the word 'god' has becomea common noun, in that in the world both speech and beliefare of gods in the plural, yet Blessed be the God of our Lord JesusChrist will be understood to refer to none other than the Creator,who has both blessed all things—you have it in Genesisa—andis blessed by all things—you have it in Daniel.b Likewise, if'father' is a possible description of a god with no offspring, theCreator has a far better right to it; yet even so, Father of mercieshas to be the same one who is described as tender-hearted andpitiful and abundant in mercy. You have it in Jonah,c along withthat actual instance of the mercy he showed to the Nineviteswhen they besought him. He is ready to be moved by the tearsof Hezekiah,d ready also to forgive Naboth's blood to Ahab the

11. 1 See Appendix 2.

V. 11

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

579

husband of Jezebel when he asks for pardon,e ready at once toforgive David's sin when he confesses it,f preferring in fact asinner's repentance to his deaths—and all this because of hisdisposition to mercy. If Marcion's god has either done or saidanything of this sort, I shall acknowledge him as a father ofmercies. But if Marcion attaches this title to him only from thetime he was revealed, as though he has been the father of merciesonly since he undertook to deliver the human race—well, sincethe time they allege he was revealed we too deny his existence. Hecannot therefore attach any attribute to one whom he only bringsinto evidence while he attaches some attribute to him. Only ifhis existence were previously acknowledged could attributes beattached to him. That which is alleged as an attribute is <inlogical terms> an accident, and accidents are preceded by evi- dence of the object to which they occur,—and especially so whensomeone else is already in possession of that which is being ascribedto him of whose existence there has been no previous evidence.There will be the more cause for denying his existence, the morethat which is adduced as proof of his existence is the propertyof one already shown to exist. So also the New Testament will be- long to none other than him who made that promise: even if theletter is not his, yet the Spirit is: herein lies the newness. Indeedhe who had engraved the letter upon tables of stone is the samewho also proclaimed, in reference to the Spirit, I will pour forth ofmy Spirit upon allflesh.hAnd if the letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life,both of them belong to him who said, Iwill kill and I will makealive, I will smite and I will heal.iI have long ago established mycontention that the Creator's power is twofold, that he is bothjudge and kind, that by the letter he kills through the law, andby the Spirit he makes alive through the gospel. Two gods cannotbe made out of facts which, though diverse, have already beenrecited in the evidence supplied by the one God. He also refersto Moses' veil with which he covered his face, which the childrenof Israel could not bear to look upon. If his purpose there wasto maintain that the brightness of the New Testament, whichremaineth in glory, is greater than the glory of the Old Testament,which was to be done away, this too is in agreement with my faith,which sets the gospel above the law: and in better agreement withmine. For the giving of superiority is possible only where there hasexisted something to give superiority over. And when he says,

V. 11

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

581

But the perceptions of the world were blunted, he is not referring tothe Creator but to the people of Israel, who are in the world. Forof Israel he says, Until this very day the same veil is in their heart. Heindicates that the veil of the face in Moses was a figure of theveil of the heart in that people, because among them even nowMoses is not clearly seen with the heart, just as then he was notclearly seen by face. What then is there still under a veil in Mosesthat has reference to Paul, if (as you allege) the Creator's Christprophesied by Moses has not yet come? In what sense are thehearts of the Jews described as still covered up and veiled, if thethings prophesied by Moses have not yet been brought to pass,the things concerning Christ, in whom they ought to have under- standing of Moses? What did it matter to the apostle of a differentChrist, if the Jews failed to understand the mysteries of their ownGod, unless it was that the veil upon their heart had reference tothe blindness by which they failed to look steadfastly upon Moses'Christ? Then again, that which follows, When however he turnethback to God the veil will be taken away, he addresses to the Jew inparticular upon whom Moses' veil still lies: who, when he haspassed over into the faith of Christ, understands how Mosesprophesied of Christ. For the rest, how shall the Creator's veilbe taken away in the Christ of a different god, over whose mysteriesthe Creator could not have laid a veil—unknown mysteries of anunknown god? So he says that we now with open face, the face ofthe heart which in the Jews has a veil upon it, looking steadfastlyupon Christ are by the same image being transfigured from glory, theglory by which Moses also was transfigured by the glory of theLord, into glory. Thus he first sets down Moses' corporal enlighten- ment on meeting with the Lord, and the corporal veil because ofthe feebleness of that people, and then sets over against them thespiritual revelation and the spiritual glory in Christ—as though,he says, by the Lord of spirits—thus bearing witness that the wholehistory of Moses was a figure of that Christ who is unknownamong the Jews, but well known among ourselves. I am awarethat certain expressions can be made of doubtful meaning throughaccent in pronunciation or manner of punctuation, when thereis room for a double possibility in such respects. Marcion wascatching at this when he read, In whom the god of this age,2so that

11. 2 On 'the god of this world', compare a similar argument at IV. 38. 5-8, andbelow, V. 17. 7-9. Tertullian's first suggestion (taken over from Irenaeus,[continued on p. 583

V. 11

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

583

by pointing to the Creator as the god of this age he might suggestthe idea of a different god of a different age. I however affirmthat it must be punctuated like this: In whom God; and then, Hathblinded the minds of the unbelievers of this age: In whom, meaning theunbelieving Jews, in whom was covered up—among some is stillcovered up—the gospel beneath Moses' veil. For against them,for loving him with their lips but in their heart removing far offfrom him, God had uttered threats:j With the ear ye shall hear, andnot hear; with eyes ye shall see, and not see,kand, Unless ye believe yeshall not understand:land, Iwill take away the wisdom of the wise, andwill make of none effect the prudence of the prudent.mBut it was notconcerning the hiding away of the gospel of an unknown god thathe made these threats. And so, even though it were, The god ofthis world, yet it is of the unbelievers of this world that he blindsthe heart, because they have not of their own selves recognizedhis Christ, whom they ought to have known of from the scriptures.So much for this discussion of what is involved in doubtful punctua- tion—to prevent it from being of advantage to my opponent—satisfied to have won my case—I am even in a position entirelyto bypass this argument. It will be quite easy for a more straight- forward answer to explain the lord of this world as the devil,who said, as the prophet relates: Iwill be like unto the Most High,I will set my throne in the clouds:neven as the entire superstitionof this present age is under contract to him who blinds the heartsof unbelievers, and in particular the apostate Marcion. He infact has not observed that the conclusion of the sentence is inopposition to him: Because God, who commanded the light to shine outof darkness, hath shined in our hearts, unto the light of the knowledge ofhimself in the countenance of Christ.3Who was it that said, Let there belight?oAnd of the giving of light to the world, who was it said toChrist, I have set thee for a light of the gentiles,pthose in fact who sitin darkness and in the shadow of death?qTo this, by foreknowledge ofthe future, the Spirit answers in the psalm, There hath been set as asign above us the light of thy countenance, O Lord.rNow the countenanceof God is Christ the Lord: and of him the apostle has already said,Who is the image of God. So then if Christ is the countenance ofthe Creator who says Let there be light, then Christ and the apostles

A.H. in. vii. 1) that the correct phrasing is 'the unbelievers of this world',cannot stand: the Greek will not allow it. His 'simpler answer' is preferable.11. 3 Tertullian has in mind two possible meanings of persona, 'face' and 'person'.

V. 11

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

585

and the gospel and the veil and Moses, and the whole sequence,does on the evidence of the end of the sentence belong to theCreator, the God of this world, and certainly not to him who hasnever said, Let there be light. I forbear to treat here of anotherepistle to which we give the title To the Ephesians, but the hereticsTo the Laodiceans. For he says that the gentiles remember that atthat time when they were without Christ, aliens from Israel,without the association and the covenants and the hope of thepromise, they were even without God, were in the world,s eventhough <they were> of the Creator. So then as he has said thegentiles are without God, and the god they have is the devil,not the Creator, it is clear that the lord of this age must be under- stood to be he whom the gentiles have accepted instead of God,not the Creator of whom they know nothing. Again, how is itthat the treasure we have in our earthen vessels should not behis to whom the vessels belong? For if it is the glory of God thatso great a treasure should be kept in earthen vessels, and theearthen vessels are the Creator's, then the glory also is the Crea- tor's, and it is his vessels that savour of the excellency of the powerof God, and the power too is his: because these things were en- trusted to earthen vessels for just that purpose, that his excellencymight be approved. By contrast then, there can be no glory, andtherefore no power, for that other god, but rather dishonour andfeebleness, if his excellency is contained in earthen vessels whichare not even his own. But if these are the earthen vessels in whichhe says we suffer so many things, in which we even bear about thedying of God, God is ungrateful enough and unjust enough ifhe does not intend to raise up again this substance in which forthe faith of him so much is suffered, in which also we bear aboutthe death of Christ, in which the excellency of the power receivesconsecration. For he sets down the reason, That the life also ofChrist may be made manifest in our body, even as, he means, his deathtoo is borne about in the body. Of which life of Christ then is hespeaking? Of that by which we are now alive in him? Yet how,in what follows, does he exhort us not towards things visible northings temporal, but to things invisible and eternal, not, that is,to things present but to things to come? But if he is speaking of thefuture life of Christ, and says that it will be made manifest in thebody, evidently this is a statement of the resurrection of the flesh:for he says that our outward man is decaying, yet not as by

V. 12

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

587

everlasting destruction after death, but through the labours andinconveniences of which he has already observed, Neither shallwe faint. For when he says that our inward man is renewed fromday to day, he is here drawing attention to both facts, the decay- ing of the body through the harassment of temptations, and therenewing of the mind by contemplation of the promises.

12. [2 Cor. 5-13.] So again when he says that after our earthlyhouse has been dissolved we have an eternal home, not madewith hands, in heaven, he does not mean that the home madeby the Creator's hand perishes for ever by dissolution after death.That this discussion is intended to assuage the fear of death andthe grief due to that dissolution, is even more evident from whatfollows, when he adds that in this tabernacle of an earthly bodywe groan, desiring to be clothed upon with that which is fromheaven, seeing that when unclothed we shall not be found naked;that is, we shall have given to us again that of which we have beenunclothed, the body. And again, For we that are in this tabernacleof the body do groan, because we are burdened, not wishing to be un- clothed but to be clothed upon. Here he has expressed clearly a matterhe touched upon in his first epistle: And the dead shall rise againincorruptiblea—those already dead—and we shall be changed—wewho while in the flesh shall have been found so by God. For theytoo will rise again incorruptible, receiving back their body, re- ceiving it entire, so as from henceforth to be incorruptible: andthese <others> because it is the last moment of time, and becauseof their merits due to the harassments of antichrist, will begranted a bypassing of death, though changed, being not somuch divested of the body as clothed upon with that which isfrom heaven. So if these latter are over their body to put on thatheavenly <garment>, evidently the dead too will receive backtheir body, that over it they also may put on incorruption fromheaven: because it is of them that he says, For this corruptible mustput on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality.bThe onepart are clothed with it after they have received back the body:the other part are clothed upon with it, because they have al- ways kept their body. And so it was not without reason that hesaid, Not wishing to be divested of the body but to be clothed upon,which means, wishing not to experience death but to be antici- pated by life, that this mortal may be swallowed up by life when

V. 12

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

589

rescued from death by virtue of the overclothing of that changedcondition. Consequently, because he has shown that this is thebetter thing, so that we may not be saddened, as perhaps wemay, by the anticipation of death, he says that we have from Godthe earnest of the Spirit, as it were holding the pledge of thathope of being clothed upon; and that so long as we are in theflesh we are absent from the Lord, and therefore ought to thinkit better the rather to be absent from the body and present withthe Lord: so that we may even welcome death with gladness.Consequently he adds that we must all be presented before thejudgement-seat of Christ, that every one of us may receive backthe things he has committed by means of his body, whether it begood or evil. If then reward of merits comes at that point, how canit be thought that some people are already with God? Also,by referring to the judgement-seat and the rewarding of goodwork and evil, he points to a judge who passes one sentence orthe other, and has also affirmed the presentment <in court> of thebodies of all men. For the acts committed in the body can onlybe judged in the body: for God is unjust if a man is not punishedor benefited by means of that by which he has done what hehas done. So then, if there be any new creation in Christ, the old thingsare passed away, behold all things have been made new: Isaiah's prophecyis fulfilled.c If he also bids us cleanse ourselves from the defile- ment of flesh and blood, it is not the substance <but the worksof that substance he says are not> capable of the kingdom of God.And if his purpose is to present the church as a holy virgin toChrist, evidently as bride to bridegroom, the metaphor cannotbe made to apply to one hostile to the actuality of the institutionreferred to.1 If also he describes as false apostles certain deceitfulworkers, transforming themselves, evidently by hypocrisy, he ischarging them with falsification of manners, not of the faith theypreach: so that the dispute was about the rule of conduct, notabout the godhead. If Satan is transformed into an angel of light,this cannot be directed against the Creator: for the Creator is notan angel, but God, and he would have been described as trans- forming himself into a god of light, not an angel, if the referencehad not been to that Satan whom both Marcion and I know tobe an angel. Concerning paradise there is a separate work <of

12. 1 Marcion, who objects to matrimony (cf. I. 29), ought not to have retainedthe image or metaphor of 2 Cor. 11: 2.

V. 13

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

591

mine> touching on every question suggested by it. At presentperhaps I have this to marvel at, whether a god with no terrestrialinterests can have possessed a paradise of his own—unless perhapshe has by permission made use of the Creator's paradise, as <hehas of the Creator's> world. Still, there is the Creator's precedentof lifting a man up to heaven, the case of Elijah.a I shall marveleven more if that lord supremely good, so averse from smiting andraging, should have applied not his own but the Creator'smessenger of Satan to buffet his own apostle, and though thricebesought by him have refused to yield. So then Marcion's godadministers correction after the manner of the Creator who ishostile to those exalted, who in fact puts down the mighty fromtheir throne. And is it he also who gave Satan power even overJob's body, that strength might obtain approval in weakness?And how is it that this severe critic of the Galatians retains therule of the law by premising that in three witnesses every wordshall be established? How is it that he threatens that he will notspare the sinners, this preacher of your kind and gentle god?Indeed he claims that his power to act more sternly when presenthas been given him by the Lord. Profess now, heretic, that yourgod is not an object of fear: his apostle was.

13. On the Epistle to the Romans.1 [Rom. 1-7.] The nearer thiswork draws to its end, the less need there is for any but brieftreatment of questions which arise a second time, and goodreason to pass over entirely some which we have often metwith. It is sheer boredom to argue again about the law: I haveagain and again proved that its withdrawal provides no argumentfor a different god in Christ, for it was prophesied and promisedin expectation of Christ in the Creator's scriptures: so much sothat this present epistle is seen for the most part to put the lawinto abeyance. Also I have already more than once proved thatthe substance of the apostle's preaching is of God as judge, andthat judge implies avenger, and avenger creator. And so againhere: when he says, For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is thepower of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, to the Jew and tothe Greek, because the righteousness of God is revealed in it from faithunto faith, there is no doubt he ascribes both gospel and salvationto a God not kind but just—if I am permitted to make the

13. 1 See Appendix 2.

826805 Z

V. 13

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

593

distinction the heretic makes—a God who carries men over fromthe faith of the law to the faith of the gospel: evidently his ownlaw and his own gospel. Because he also says that wrath is re- vealed from heaven against the godlessness and unrighteousnessof men who hold down the truth in unrighteousness. WhichGod's wrath? Surely the Creator's. Then the truth will belongto him whose is that wrath which is to be revealed to avengethe truth. Also when he adds, But we know that the judgement ofGod is according to truth, he sets his approval on that actual wrathfrom which proceeds judgement on behalf of the truth, and con- versely proves that the truth belongs to that same God of whosewrath he has expressed approval by approving of his judgement.It is quite a different matter if the Creator in anger is takingvengeance for the truth of that other god being held down inunrighteousness. But how many ditches Marcion has dug,especially in this epistle, by removing all that he would, willbecome evident from the complete text of my copy. I myselfneed do no more than accept, as the result of his carelessness andblindness, those passages which he did not see he had equallygood reason to excise. For if God will judge the secret things ofmen, both those who have sinned in the law and those who havesinned without the law—because these too, though they areignorant of the law, yet do by nature the things of the law—evidently the judge will be that God to whom belong both thelaw and that nature which to those who know not the law has thevalue of law. But how will he judge? According to the gospel, he says,by Christ. So then both the gospel and Christ belong to him whoseare both law and nature, and both these will by the gospel andby Christ receive vindication from God in that judgement ofGod already referred to as according to truth. Therefore just as bythe defence of it wrath is revealed from heaven—which can onlybe from a God of wrath—so again here the thought, in coherencewith the former, in which the Creator's judgement is declared,can never be referred to that other god who neither judges noris wroth, but only to him whose these are—I mean judgementand wrath—at the same time as those also are his by which judge- ment and wrath are to be exercised—I mean the gospel, andChrist. Hence his attack upon transgressors of the law, whoteach men not to steal yet themselves steal, as a loyal servant of theGod of the law, not as attainting the Creator himself under these

V. 13

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

595

heads, as one who while forbidding to steal gave command fordeception against the Egyptians in the matter of gold and silvera—for after this fashion they hurl back other complaints against him.Do you think the apostle hesitated to cast open censure againstthe God from whom <you allege> he had not hesitated to revolt?No, his attack was as clearly against the Jews as was his introduc- tion of the prophetic rebuke, For your sakes the name of God isblasphemed.bHow preposterous then that he should himselfblaspheme the God whom he rebukes evil men for causing tobe blasphemed. He says also that circumcision of the heart isbetter than uncircumcision: it was under the God of the law thatfirst appeared this circumcision of the heart, not of the flesh; inthe spirit, not in the letter. But if this is the circumcision Jeremiahmeans,cAnd circumcise the foreskins of your heart—as also Moses said,dCircumcise your hardness of heart—then the Spirit who circumcisesthe heart will be his whose is the letter that slices off the flesh,and the Jew who is in secret will be his whose is the Jew who is oneopenly: because the apostle would not be disposed to give thename of Jew to one who was not the servant of the Jews' God.Of old there was the law, but now the righteousness of God bythe faith of Christ. What is this distinction? Was it that your goddid service to the Creator's design, granting him and his lawtime <to come into action>? Or did it belong to the same Godthen as now? The law belongs to him to whom belongs the faithof Christ: the distinction is not between two gods but two coursesof divine action. He enjoins us who are justified, not by the lawbut by the faith of Christ, to have peace towards God. Whichgod? Him whose enemies we have never been, or him againstwhose law and nature we have been in rebellion? For if the peaceneeded is with him with whom there has been war, for him weshall be justified; and Christ by whose faith we shall be justified,will belong to him to whose peace it is needful that his enemiesshould sometime be brought back. But the law, he says, enteredin besides, that the offence might abound. Why? So that grace, he says,might much more abound. Which god's grace, if not his whose is thelaw? Unless you think the Creator with this intent interposedthe law, that he might provide business for the grace of that othergod who was even his enemy—not to mention, unknown to him—so that as in his own days sin had reigned unto death, so alsograce should reign in righteousness unto life through Jesus Christ

V. 14

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

597

his adversary. Had the Creator's law for this reason concludedall things under sin,e and brought the whole world under accusa- tion, and stopped every mouth, so that no man might glory be- cause of it, but that grace might be reserved for the glory of Christ,not the Creator's Christ but Marcion's? At this point again Ican make preliminary observations regarding Christ's substance,with a view to the question soon to follow. We were dead, hesays, to the law <by the body of Christ>. So then the body ofChrist it can even be argued is a body, though not necessarilyflesh. And yet, whatever that substance may be, seeing that heexpressly says the body of him who, he goes on to say, has risenagain from the dead, 'body' must of course be taken to mean abody consisting of flesh, the flesh against which the law of deathhas been pronounced. But see now, he gives evidence in favourof the law, and by reason of sin finds excuse for it. What shall wesay then? That the law is sin? God forbid. Shame on you, Marcion.God forbid: the apostle expresses abhorrence of complaint againstthe law. Yet I know not sin except by the law. What noble com- mendation does this give to the law, that through it it was <not>possible for sin to remain hidden. So then it was not the law thatled them astray, but sin taking occasion by the commandment.How can you blame the God of the law for something the apostledoes not presume to blame his law for? Yet he adds even more:The law is holy, and its commandment is just, and good. When he hassuch reverence for the Creator's law, I do not see how he can bebelittling the Creator. Who is this that makes a distinction be- tween two gods, one of them just, the other good, when he whosecommandment is both good and just must himself be both theone and the other? As he also affirms that the law is spiritual,then it must be prophetic, and consequently figurative. For Iam bound from this too to conclude that in the law Christ waspreached under a figure, which is why not all the Jews werecapable of recognizing him.

14. [Rom. 8-14.] That the Father sent Christ in the likeness offlesh of sin is no reason for saying that the flesh which was visiblein him was a phantasm. The apostle has just recently attributedsin to the flesh, and has called it the law of sin dwelling in hismembers and warring against the law of the mind.a For thispurpose then he says the Son was sent in the likeness of flesh of

V. 14

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

599

sin, that he might redeem flesh of sin by a similar substance,a fleshly substance, such as should be similar to sinful flesh, whilenot itself sinful. For in this will consist the power of God, in usinga similar substance to accomplish salvation. For it would be nogreat matter if the Spirit of God were to give healing to flesh,though it is so when this is done by flesh exactly like sinful flesh,which is flesh, though not flesh of sin. Thus 'likeness' will be con- cerned with the matter of 'sin', making no suggestion of falsityof substance. For he would not have added 'of sin' if he hadintended us so to understand likeness of substance as to excludethe verity of it: in such a case he would have written 'likeness offlesh', without 'of sin'. But as he has put it in this form, 'of fleshof sin', he has given assurance concerning the substance, whichis flesh, but has made 'likeness' refer to the defect of the substance,which is sin. But suppose now he did mean likeness of substance:even so there will be no denial of the verity of the substance.Why then 'like', if true? Because although true, it was not of<human> seed: in quality it was both 'like' and true: in originnot so, but unlike. But among opposites there is no similitude.Spirit could not be described as 'likeness of flesh', because neithercould flesh take upon it the likeness of spirit: if it was visible asthat which it was not, it would be described as 'phantasm'. Butit is called 'likeness' when it is what it is seen to be. For it is <alikeness> while it is the equal of something else: but a phantasm,provided it is no more than that, is not a likeness. Here again,when explaining how he would have us not to be in the flesh,though we are in the flesh, namely, that we should not be in theworks of the flesh, he himself makes it clear that in this sense hewrote, Flesh and blood cannot obtain the kingdom of God,bnot passingsentence on the substance, but on its works: and because whilestill in the flesh we are capable of not committing these, theywill be accounted to the guilt not of the substance but of ourconduct. Again, if the body indeed is dead because of sin, then this isnot the death of soul but of body: but the spirit is life because ofrighteousness, to that upon which death has come because of sin,namely, the body. For restitution of an object is only made tohim who has lost it, and so it can be a resurrection of the deadonly so long as it is a resurrection of bodies. For he proceeds: Hethat raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies.In this way he confirms the resurrection of the flesh, since apart

V. 14

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

601

from flesh nothing else can be described as body, nor anythingelse be taken for mortal: and he has also given proof of Christ'scorporal substance, in that our mortal bodies are to be quickenedon the same terms on which he too was raised up again, and onthe same terms can only mean in the body. I overleap here animmense chasm left by scripture carved away: though I take noteof the apostle giving evidence for Israel that they have a zeal ofGod, their own God of course, though not by means of knowledge.For they, he says, being ignorant of God, and seeking to establish theirown righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness ofGod: for Christ is the end of the law in righteousness to every one thatbelieveth. Here the heretic will raise a quibble that it was thatsuperior god whom the Jews did not know, and that against himthey set up their own righteousness, that of their own law, whilethey refused to accept Christ, the end of the law. In that case whydoes he give his own testimony to their zeal towards God, if itis not also their lack of knowledge towards the same God thathe puts to rebuke?—because they were led indeed by zeal forGod, though not by means of knowledge, being in fact in ignoranceof him, because they were ignorant of his purposes in Christ whowas to establish fulfilment for the law, and were thus maintainingtheir own righteousness in opposition to him. In like terms theCreator himself attests their ignorance regarding him: Israel dothnot know me and the people hath not understood me:cas also that theypreferred to establish their own righteousness, teaching as doctrinesthe commandments of men,d and also were gathered togetheragainst the Lord and against his Christ,e because of lack of know- ledge, of course. So then nothing must be explained as referringto another god, which is applicable to the Creator: for this wouldmean that in other places too the apostle had undeservedly re- buked the Jews for ignorance regarding a god unknown. Forwhat sin had they committed in establishing the righteousness oftheir own God in opposition to the god they were ignorant of?And now he cries aloud, O the depth of the riches and wisdom of God!. . . and his ways past finding out! Whence that outburst? Out ofhis recollection of those scriptures to which he had already re- ferred: out of his meditation upon those types and figures whichhe had previously expounded as bearing on the faith of Christwhich was to emerge from the law. If Marcion has of set purposecut out these passages what is this exclamation his apostle makes,

V. 14

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

603

when he has no riches of <his> god to look upon, a poor god andneedy as one must be who has created nothing, prophesied no- thing, in fact possessed nothing—one who has come down on toanother's property? Moreover it was the Creator's wealth andriches which were formerly hidden away, but are now unlocked.For so he had promised: Iwill give them the hidden treasures, invisible<treasures> will I open for them.fHence then the exclamation, O thedepth of the riches and wisdom of God, the God whose treasureswere now laid open. That is Isaiah's: and what follows is fromthat same prophet's indenture: For who hath known the mind ofthe Lord, or who hath been his counsellor? Who hath offered a gift to him,and it shall be recompensed to him again ?gWhen you took away somuch from the scriptures, why did you retain this, as thoughthis too were not the Creator's? Let us look at what clearly arethe commandments of a new god: Abhorring, he says, the evil, andcleaving to the good. Does the Creator say anything different? Putaway the evil from you,hand, Depart from evil and do good.i In love ofthe brotherhood kindly affectioned one to another: is not that the sameas, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself ?j Rejoicing in hope,
the hopeof God: for, It is better to hope in the Lord than to hope in governors.kPatient under distress: for, The Lord will hear thee in the day of distress:lyou have the psalm. Bless, and curse not: who better can have giventhis teaching than he who established all things with blessings?Not high-minded, but consenting to the lowly, and be not wise in your ownsight: for Isaiah pronounces woe against such as these.mRecom- pense to no man evil for evil: And remember not thy brother's wickedness.nNot avenging yourselves:
for, Vengeance is mine, and I will repay, saiththe Lord.o Have peace with all men:
so also the law of retributiongave no permission to revenge an injury, but restrained theinfliction of it by fear of revenge. With reason therefore has heembraced the Creator's whole moral law in its own principalcommandment: Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself. If thisfulfilling of the law comes from the law itself, I am now at a losswho may be the God of the law. Perhaps it is Marcion's god.But if the gospel of Christ is fulfilled by this commandment, butwhat is Christ's is not the Creator's, what are we still contendingabout? Whether Christ said or did not say, Iam not come to destroythe law but to fulfil it, to no purpose has Pontus raged and stormedto discount that saying. If the gospel has not fulfilled the law,even so the law has fulfilled the gospel. Well is it again that at the

V. 15

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

605

end he holds out the threat of Christ's judgement-seat, Christbeing both judge and avenger, and clearly the Creator's Christ:certainly he lays it down that his favour must be sought who heindicates ought to be feared—even if it were that other he wastelling of.

15. On the First Epistle to the Thessalonians.1 It will not comeamiss to pay attention to the shorter epistles as well: there issavour even in brevity. The Jews had slain their own prophets.I may ask, What is this to the apostle of your other god, your godsupremely good, who you say does not condemn the sins even ofhis own people, and himself in a sense puts those same prophetsto death by destroying their credit? What wrong has Israel com- mitted in his sight if it has killed those whom he too has rejected,if it has anticipated him in passing hostile judgement upon them?But, <you object,> Israel sinned in the sight of their own God.Rebuke of iniquity has to be the act of him to whom belongs theone who has suffered the wrong: certainly of anyone rather thanthe opponent of the sufferer. And besides, he would not also haveburdened them with the charge of the Lord's murder as well, insaying, Who both killed the Lord, and their own prophets—although'their own' is the heretic's addition.2 Was there anything muchto complain of, that they put to death Christ, the preacher ofa different god, when they had slaughtered the prophets of theirown God? It is the rhetorical figure of climax, that they haddestroyed the Lord, and also his servants. But if it was one god'sChrist they destroyed, and another God's prophets, this was noclimax, no piling of wrong upon wrong, but a balancing of wrongagainst wrong. But there could be no question of balancing: therehad to be piling up, and this could only be if the wrong was com- mitted against the same Lord under both counts. ThereforeChrist and the prophets belong to the same God. Now what thissanctity of ours is which he says is the will of God, you might findout from those opposites which he prohibits. To abstain, he says,from fornication—not 'from matrimony': everyone should know howto use his own vessel with honour. How? While not in lust as do thegentiles. But not even among the gentiles is lust attributed to matri- mony, but to unusual and unnatural and outrageous forms of

15. 1 See Appendix 2.2 But 'their own' found its way into the uncials KL, and the textus receptus.

V. 15

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

607

excess. <Sanctity> is also the opposite of obscenity and unclean-ness, putting a check not on matrimony but on lechery, as ituses our vessel in the honourable estate of matrimony. I shall beseen to have treated of this passage without prejudice to thesuperior rank of that other, that more complete, sanctity: for Iassign to continence and virginity preference over marriage, yetwithout prohibiting marriage. My attack is against those whooverthrow the God of marriage, not those who make a practiceof chastity. He says that those who remain until the coming ofChrist, will, along with those who are dead in Christ and are tobe the first to rise again, be caught up in the clouds into the airto meet the Lord. I tell myself it was even so long ago with all thisin prospect that the celestial existences held in admiration thatJerusalem which is above, and cried in the words of Isaiah, Whoare they that fly hither as the clouds, and as doves with their nestlingstowards me?aIf this is the ascent Christ has in store for us, Christwill be he of whom Amos speaks: Who buildeth up his ascent intothe heavens,bsurely for himself and his own. And next, from whomshall I now hope for these things, except from him from whomI have heard of them? Which spirit does he tell them not toquench, and which prophesyings does he say must not be despised?Marcion of course says, not the Creator's Spirit, nor the Creator'sprophesyings: for these, which he brings into disrepute, he hashimself already quenched and nullified, and is not in a positionto forbid things he has made of no account. So Marcion's taskis to put in evidence today in his church some spirit of his godwhich from now on is not to be quenched, and prophesyingsthat are not to be despised. And if he has put in evidence what hesupposes <to be such>, let him know that we shall challenge that,whatever it is, according to the standard of spiritual and pro- phetic grace and power, calling on it to foretell the future, toreveal the secrets of the heart, and to expound mysteries. Whenit produces nothing of this kind, nor obtains its acceptance, wefor our part shall produce both the Spirit and the prophesyingsof the Creator, giving utterance as he directs. Thus there willbe no further doubt to what things the apostle referred—thosethings in fact which were to come to pass in the church of thatGod who himself exists, whose Spirit also is in operation, and hispromise being fulfilled. Come now, you who deny the salvationof the flesh, and whenever the word 'body' is used in this

826805 A a

V. 16

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

609

connection explain it as anything on earth except the substance offlesh, see how the apostle has made distinct reference underdefinite names to all the substances we consist of, and includedthem all in one prayer for salvation, desiring that our spirit andbody and soul be preserved without complaint at the coming ofour Lord and Saviour Christ. He has written both 'soul' and'body', two things which are not the same thing.3 For althoughsoul too is body of some sort, having its own attributes, as spirithas, yet when body and soul are spoken of separately soul has itsown particular word, having no need for that common term'body'. This is left to the flesh, which when not referred to by itsown particular term, has to be making use of the common one.In any case, over against spirit and soul I am not aware in manof any other substance except flesh to which this term 'body' canbe applied: so that as often as it is not given its own name Iunderstand it under the name of 'body': much more so here whenthe flesh which is referred to as body, is being called by its propername.

16. On the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. I am forced torepeat certain things again and again, so as to establish the truthsconnected with them. I affirm that here again the apostle repre- sents the Lord as giving recompense to deserts of either kind—either the Creator, or, as Marcion would deny, someone likethe Creator, one with whom it is a righteous thing that tribulationshould be the recompense of those who afflict us, and that restshould be the reward of us who are in affliction, at the revelationof the Lord Jesus when he comes from heaven with his mightyangels and in a flame of fire. But the heretic has extinguishedflame and fire by crossing them out: otherwise he would havemade him into a god like ours. But the uselessness of the erasureis evident. When the apostle writes that the Lord will come toexact vengeance of them that know not God and obey not thegospel, and says they will pay the penalty of destruction, aneternal penalty, from the face of the Lord and from the glory ofhis power, he must of necessity bring with him a flame of fire,

15. 3 In terms of Tertullian's Stoic metaphysics everything that exists, even Godhimself, is body (not 'has a body') of some sort. So de carne Christi 11.4, adv.Prax. 7.8. But, he observes, when corpus is used in a non-metaphysical context itsnatural meaning is caro.

V. 16

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

611

since he comes with intent to punish. So that in this too, thoughMarcion denies it, Christ belongs to a God who consumes withfire, and consequently, to the Creator, because he even takesvengeance on them that know not the Lord, which means theheathen: for he has made separate reference to those who obeynot the gospel, whether they be Christian sinners, or Jews. Butto exact penalties of the heathen, such, it seems, as do not knowthe gospel, is not the act of a god by nature unknown, one neverrevealed except in the gospel, one not capable of being knownby all. But the Creator has the right to be known by nature, tobe understood by means of his works, and thereafter to be soughtfor with a view to fuller knowledge. So then, to chastise thosewho know not God is within the competence of the God whomthey have no right not to know. His very expression, From theface of the Lord and from the glory of his power, in which he usesIsaiah's words, ofitself suggests that same Lord, who ariseth toshake terribly the earth.aNow who is that man of sin, that son ofperdition, who must needs be first revealed before the Lord'scoming,—he who exalteth himself above all that is called Godand all that is worshipped, who will take his seat in the temple ofGod and boast that he is god? We affirm that he is antichrist,as both the old and the new prophecies explain, as does Johnthe apostle who says that antichrists have already come forthinto the world,b forerunners of the spirit of antichrist, denyingthat Christ has come in the flesh, and dissolving Jesusc—meaningin God the Creator: though I suspect that according to Marcionantichrist is the Creator's Christ, for in his view <that Christ>has not yet come. But whichever of the two he is, I should liketo know why his coming is with all power and signs and lyingwonders. Because, he answers, they have not received the love of thetruth, that they might be saved, and for this cause it will become for theman impulse of delusion, that they all may come under judgement who havenot believed the truth but have taken pleasure in unrighteousness. So thenif this is antichrist, and he is imitating the Creator, it will be Godthe Creator who sends him to thrust down into error those whohave not believed the truth, that they might be saved: and thetruth and the salvation also will belong to him who takes ven- geance on their behalf by the substitution of error, that is, theCreator: and to him also belongs that jealousy in deceiving byerror those whom he has not gained by the truth. If however it

V. 17

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

613

is not antichrist, as we suggest, then it is the Creator's Christ,as Marcion claims. But how can it be that <Marcion's god>should send the Creator's Christ to avenge his own truth? Butif he agrees regarding antichrist, I go on to ask how it is that<Marcion's god> should have need of Satan, the Creator's angel,and that <Satan> should be slain by him, when his task is to putin operation the working of delusion on the Creator's behalf. Inshort, if it is beyond doubt that both the angel and the truthand the salvation are his to whom belong also the wrath andenmity and the sending of delusion against despisers and de- serters, and even against the ignorant—and let Marcion at thispoint retire from his position and admit that his too is a jealousgod—which will have the more right to be angry? He, I suggest,who since the beginning has provided the world of nature withworks, with benefits, plagues, preachings, evidences by whichmen should know him, yet has remained unrecognized: or shallit be he who once only by the one single document of the gospel,even that far from clear, openly in fact giving evidence for adifferent God—has brought himself to notice? So then to himto whom vengeance belongs, will also belong that which is theground for vengeance, the gospel and the truth and salvation.To command that that man must work who desires to eat, is therule of conduct of one who has commanded that an ox must beunmuzzled when it treads out the corn.

17. On the Epistle to the Laodiceans.1 [Eph. 1 and 2.] By thechurch's truth we have it that this epistle was sent to the Ephesians,not the Laodiceans: Marcion has been at pains at some time tofalsify its title, in this matter too an industrious discoverer of newways. But the title is of no concern, since when the apostle wroteto some he wrote to all, and without doubt his teaching in Christwas of that God to whom the facts of his teaching rightly be- long. Now to whom can it rightly belong, according to thatgood pleasure which he purposed in the mystery of his will fora dispensation of the fullness of times—that I may so express it,since the word has this meaning in the Greek—to recapitulate—that is, to refer back to their beginning, or perhaps to recountfrom their beginning—all things unto Christ which are in heaven and

17. 1 See Appendix 2.

V. 17

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

615

which are in earth, to whom but to him to whom all things will befound to belong since the beginning, as did even the beginning,and from whom also are the times, and that dispensation of thefulfilling of the times on account of which in Christ all things arebeing counted back to their beginning? Your other god, whatbeginning has he, what 'since when', seeing no work of his exists?What times, when no beginning? What fulfilling, when no times?What dispensation, when no fulfilling? What in fact has he everdone of old upon earth to justify the reckoning of some long- standing dispensation of times that are to be fulfilled, for therecounting of all things in Christ, even those which are in heaven?Yet not even in heaven can we suppose acts have been done,whatever acts there are, by any other than him by whom weare agreed the acts were done upon earth. But if it is not possiblefor all things since the beginning to be regarded as belonging toany other than the Creator, how can one think they are beingrecounted by another god unto another Christ, and not by theirown Maker unto his own Christ? If they are the Creator's, ofnecessity they are different from that different god: and if different,then contrary. How then can contrary things be recounted untoone by whom in fact they are being overthrown? Which Christ isit the next sentence refers to, when he says, That we should be tothe praise of his glory who have previously hoped in Christ? Who canhave previously hoped, which means hoped in Christ before hiscoming, except those Jews to whom since the beginning Christwas previously announced? He then that was previously an- nounced was also previously hoped in. And so the apostle refersto himself <and his own>, which means the Jews, in such form asto make a distinction when he turns to the gentiles: In whom yealso, after ye had heard the word of truth, the gospel, in whom ye believed,and were sealed with the holy Spirit of his promise. What promise?That made by Joel: In the last days I will pour forth of my Spirit uponall flesh:athat is, upon the gentiles also. So then both the Spiritand the gospel have to be in that Christ who was previouslyhoped in, as he was previously prophesied of. Again, the Father ofglory is he whose Christ, the King of glory, the psalm sings of asascending: Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, he is the Kingof glory.bThe Spirit of wisdom is requested of him in whosescripture this particular form of spiritual gift is counted amongthe seven spirits, by Isaiah.c Enlightenment of the eyes of the

V. 17

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

617

heart will be the gift of him who has also enriched with light theoutward eyes, and is displeased at the blindness of that people—And who is blind but my servants?dand, Those of God's household havebeen struck blind.dThe riches of the inheritance in the saints are tobe found in him who has promised that inheritance by his vocationof the gentiles: Desire of me, and I will give thee the nations for thineinheritance.eThat mighty power of his in Christ, in raising himup from the dead, and setting him at his own right hand, andsubjecting all things to him, was wrought by him who said, Sitthou at my right hand until I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet:fbecause also in another place the Spirit speaks to the Father con- cerning the Son, Thou hast subjected all things beneath his feet.gIffrom these texts, which quite evidently have reference to theCreator, inference is drawn to a different god and a differentChrist, let us ask where now the Creator is. Clearly we have foundhim, I imagine, when he says that those men were dead in thesins in which they had walked according to the course of thisworld, according to the prince of the power of the air, who is nowat work in the sons of disbelief. Here again, Marcion cannot ex- plain 'world' to mean the God of the world: for the thing createdis not equivalent to its Creator, nor the thing made to its Maker,nor the world to God. Nor can he who is the Prince of the powerof the ages be described as the prince of the power of the air: noruler over higher ranks takes his title from the lower, even thoughthe lower also are counted as his. Nor can he be taken to be aworker of disbelief, when that is what he himself has to endurefrom both Jews and gentiles. Enough then that this descriptiondoes not apply to the Creator. As however there is one to whom itdoes apply, surely the apostle was more likely <than you are>to know this. And who is this? Doubtless he who erects the sonsof disbelief into a barrier even against the Creator, having takenpossession of this air, as the prophet reports that he says, Iwillset my throne in the clouds, I will be like unto the Most High,hAnd thismust be the devil, whom again in another place—if at least theyconsent to the apostle being read in this form—we shall recognizeas the god of this world:i for to that degree has he filled the wholeworld with his lying pretence of deity. Of course, if he had notexisted perhaps this description might have applied to the Crea- tor. The apostle had in the past had his conversation in Judaism.His parenthesis about the sins in which we too have all been

V. 17

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

619

conversant gives no reason for thinking that the lord of sinsand the prince of this air means the Creator: but it was becausein Judaism he had been one of the sons of disbelief, having thedevil at work in him when he was persecuting the church and theCreator's Christ, and that is why he says, We were the sons of wrath—by nature, however: otherwise, because the Creator called the Jewshis sons, the heretic might have argued that the Creator is thelord of wrath. For when he says, We were by nature the sons of wrath,while the Jews are the Creator's sons not by nature but by <God's>promotion of their fathers, he brings 'sons of wrath' into relationwith 'nature', not with the Creator, and adds at the end, Even asthe others, who are not God's sons at all. It becomes evident thatsins, and the lusts of the flesh, and disbelief, and wrath, are ac- counted to the common nature of all men, while yet the devilstill has designs upon nature, which he has already corrupted byinjecting the seed of sin. We are, he says, his own workmanship,created in Christ. To make is one thing, to create is another. But hehas assigned both these acts to one alone. Now man is the Creator'sworkmanship: and so the same God who made us has also createdus in Christ. In respect of our substance, <of what we are in our- selves>, he made us, but in respect of grace he has created us.Look closely at what follows. Remembering that ye were in time pastgentiles in the flesh, who are called the uncircumcision by that which iscalled the circumcision in the flesh, made by hands: that ye were at thattime without Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, andstrangers from the covenants and their promise, having no hope, and with- out God, in the world. Without which god does he mean the gentileswere, and without which Christ? Evidently him to whom per- tained the commonwealth of Israel, and the covenants and thepromises. But now, he says, in Christ ye who were afar off are madenigh by his blood. From whom were they formerly far off? Fromthose mentioned, above from the Creator's Christ, from thecommonwealth of Israel, from the covenants, from the hope ofthe promise, from God himself. If that is so, the gentiles are nowin Christ being made nigh to those from whom they were thenfar off. But if in Christ we have been brought very near to thecommonwealth of Israel, which is in the religion of God theCreator, and to their covenants and promise, and even to theirGod, it is very strange if the Christ of a different god has from faroff brought us near to the Creator. The apostle remembered that

V. 17

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

621

so it was prophesied of the vocation of the gentiles, that they wereto be called from far off: They that were far off from me, have drawnnear to my righteousness.jFor both the righteousness and the peaceof the Creator were proclaimed in Christ, as I have already oftenpointed out: and so he proceeds, He himself is our peace, who hathmade the two into one, the Jewish people and the gentile, that whichwas near and that which was far off, having broken down the middlewall of hostility, in his own flesh. But Marcion has removed 'hisown', so as to join flesh with hostility, as though this were acarnal defect rather than enmity against Christ. As I have re- marked before, with no Marrucine fidelity2 but with Pontic in- constancy, you have just now agreed about his blood, but heredeny his flesh. If he has made void the law of commandments<contained> in judgements, this must have been by the fulfillingof the law. There is no need now for, Thou shall not commit adultery,when you have, Thou shall not look for the sake of lusting:kno needfor Thou shall not kill, when you have, Thou shall not speak evil:1and so you cannot make a promoter of the law into an opponentof it. So that he might create the two in himself-—he who had been themaker is the same that creates, as we saw just now, For we are hisworkmanship, created in Christ—into one new man, making peace—ifreally new, then really a man, not a phantasm, but himself new,and born in a new manner, of a virgin, by the Spirit of God—thai he might reconcile both to God—the God whom both nations hadoffended—both the Jewish and the gentile people in one body, ashe expresses it, when in it he had slain the enmity by the cross. Hereagain, in Christ the body is flesh, for it was capable of sufferingcrucifixion. So then as he preaches peace to them that are nighand to those afar off, we have along with them obtained accessto the Father, and are no longer strangers or resident aliens, butfellow citizens of the saints, and resident in the household of God—evidently that God from whom we have just shown we wereformerly foreigners, set at a far distance—being built upon thefoundation of the apostles. The heretic has taken away 'and prophets',forgetting that the Lord has set in the church prophets as well as

17. 2 The Marrucini, a people on the Adriatic coast near Teate (Chieti), arepraised by Silius Italicus as inured to war and, like their neighbours theFrentani, incapable of betraying trust: Punica xv. 566. A legion raised byCaesar in that country remained faithful in spite of the difficulties of the Spanishand African campaigns: Caesar, de bello civ. i. 23, ii. 34.

V. 18

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

623

apostles:m for he was afraid lest the building up of ourselves inChrist should stand upon the foundation of the older prophets,though the apostle himself ceases not in every place to quote thoseprophets for our edification. For from whom did he learn to callChrist the chief corner stone, unless it were from the indicationgiven in the psalm, The stone which the builders rejected, the same isbecome the head of the corner?n

18. [Eph. 3-6.] As for the heretic's activity in pruning, no wonderhe abstracts odd syllables, when he frequently filches away wholepages. To himself, the apostle says, last of all was the grace givenof making all men see what is the dispensation of the mysterywhich from the ages has been hidden in God who created allthings. The heretic has removed the preposition 'in', and thusmakes it read 'from the ages hidden from God who created allthings'. But the deceit is evident: for the apostle proceeds, Thatunto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be made knownby the church the manifold wisdom of God. Whose principalities andpowers does he mean? If the Creator's, how is it that that godof yours should have been content for his own wisdom to bedisplayed to the Creator's principalities and powers but not tothe Creator himself, when even the powers would not have beencapable of getting to know anything if separate from their ownprincipal ? Or else, if he omitted to mention God at this pointbecause as their principal he is reckoned among them, in thatcase he would have declared that the mystery had been hiddenfrom the principalities and powers of him who created all things,and by that means would have reckoned him among them. Butif he means it was hidden from them, he ought to have addedthat it is manifest to him. So then it was not hidden from God,but hidden in God the Creator of all things, hidden howeverfrom his principalities and powers. For who hath known the mind ofthe Lord, or who hath been his counsellor?aConvicted here, perhapsthe heretic will change position and say that it was his own godwho wished to make known to his own powers and principalitiesthat dispensation of his own mystery which God the Creator ofall things was ignorant of. But what point was there in assertingthe ignorance of a Creator who was a stranger separated by fardistances, when even those of the household of your superior godremained ignorant? But yet to the Creator also the future was

826805 B b

V. 18

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

625

known. Did he not inevitably know that which beneath hisheaven and on his earth was due to be revealed? So this too isconfirmation of our conclusion already reached. For if theCreator was sometime to come to know that secret mystery ofthe superior god, and if the scripture said 'hidden to God whocreated all things', then it ought to have continued, 'that theremight be made known to him the manifold wisdom of god', <tohim first and> then also to the powers and principalities of which- ever god it was, along with which the Creator was going toacquire knowledge. Thus it is clear that the word removed, evenso remains safe in support of its own truth. My intention now isto work out my controversy with you in terms of the apostle'sallegories. What models could your new god have found in theprophets? He led captivity captive, the apostle says. With whatarmour? in what battles? by laying waste what nation? by over- throwing what city? what women, what children, what chieftainshas this conqueror put in chains? For when in David Christ isprophesied of as girded with a sword upon his thigh,b or in Isaiahas receiving the spoils of Samaria and the riches of Damascus,cyou force him to become truly and visibly a warrior. Observethen here his spiritual armoury and warfare, if you have by nowlearned that there is a spiritual captivity, so as to admit that thistoo belongs to him, particularly because the apostle has borrowedhis reference to this captivity from the same prophets from whomhe had accepted these commandments. Putting away lying, speakevery man truth with his neighbour, and, Be ye angry and sin notd—inthe very words in which the psalm would express his meaning—that the sun go not down upon your wrath. Have no fellowship with theworks of darkness: for, With the righteous thou shall be righteous, andwith the froward thou shall become froward, and, Put away the evil manfrom the midst of you,eand, Go ye out from the midst of them, and touchnot the unclean thing, be ye separate that bear the vessels of the Lord.j Soalso, To be drunken with wine is a dishonour, comes from the placewhere those are rebuked who make the saints drunken, And yegave my holy ones wine to drinkg—which Aaron the priest and hissons were forbidden to drink when they went into the holy places.hTo instruct them to sing to God with psalms and hymns is incharacter with him who knew that God's rebuke is directed moreagainst those who drink to the sound of tabrets and psalteries.iSo when I discover whose are the commandments and the seeds

V. 18

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

627

or expansions of commandments, I know whose the apostle is.But that wives ought to submit themselves to their husbands—how does he prove this? Because the husband, he says, is the head ofthe wife. Tell me, Marcion, does your god use the Creator's handi- work to build up authority for his law? In this at least there isevident inferiority, that he deduces from it the attributes of hisown Christ and his church—even as Christ is the head of the church.So again when he says, He that loveth his wife loveth his own flesh,even as Christ loveth the church: you see how your Christ and yourchurch are brought into comparison with a work of the Creator.What great honour is paid to the flesh under the name of thechurch! No man, he says—except of course Marcion alone—hateth his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ thechurch. Yet you alone show it hatred, by depriving it of resurrection.You will also need to hate the church, because it likewise hasChrist's affection. Nay, but Christ has loved the flesh no less thanthe church: for no man can fail to have affection even for theportrait of his bride, but in fact will keep it safe and pay it re- spect and put a garland upon it. The likeness of a thing haspartnership in honour with the thing itself. Need I now makeheavy weather of it to prove that there is the same God of theman and of Christ, of the woman and the church, of the fleshand the spirit, when the apostle himself cites, and even expounds,the Creator's ruling? For her sake shall a man leave his father andmother . . . and the two shall be in one flesh: this is a great mystery.Enough meanwhile if the Creator's mysteries are great in theapostle's sight, though of low esteem among the heretics. But Ispeak, he continues, with reference to Christ and the church. You havethere an interpretation, not a setting aside, of the mystery: hiswords prove that the type and figure of the mystery was set forthof old by him to whom also the mystery belonged. What doesMarcion think? Anyway, the Creator was not in a position toprovide types for an unknown god, who even if he were known,was hostile. The superior god had no right to take anything onloan from the inferior, even for the better purpose of discreditinghim. Let children obey their parents. Now even though Marcion hascut out, For this is the first commandment with promise, the law stillspeaks: Honour thy father and mother.jAnd, Parents bring up yourchildren in the discipline and admonition of the Lord: for you haveheard how it was said to the men of old, Ye shall tell these things in

V. 19

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

629

the ears of your children, and your children likewise in the ears of theirchildren.kWhat need then have I of two gods, if there is but onerule of conduct? Even if there are two, I shall follow the one whotaught first. But if our wrestling is against the world-rulers, ohwhat a number of creator gods there now are! Why should Inot make this further claim, that he ought to have mentionedbut one world-ruler, if he meant it was the Creator to whom be- longed the potentates just referred to. But since he has alreadybidden us put on in addition the armour in which we may standagainst the wiles of the devil, this is proof that to the devil belongthose <existences> which he associates with the devil, namely thosepowers and world-rulers of this darkness, which we also reckonare the devil's. Or else, if the devil means the Creator, whom shallthe Creator have for devil? Or is it that as there are two gods,so there are two devils, and that is the meaning of the plurals,powers and world-rulers? Yet how shall the Creator be himselfboth god and devil, without the devil too being both devil andgod? For either they are both of them gods, if they are alreadyboth of them devils, or else the one who is god is not also devil,as the devil is not also god. I wonder by what unjust claim theterm 'devil' applies to the Creator. Perhaps it presented someclaim by the superior god for the injury done him by that arch- angel, though he spoke a lie. For God had not forbidden them totaste of that tree lest they should become gods, but lest they shoulddie for their trespass. Nor can spiritual hosts of wickedness indicatethe Creator, because he has added in the heavens: for the apostleknew that spiritual hosts of wickedness had been at work in theheavens, when the angels were caused to offend against thedaughters of men. And what need had the apostle to lay complaintagainst the Creator in ambiguous terms and by any kind offigurative language, when he was already in bonds for the libertyof his preaching, and was in fact putting at the church's disposalthat boldness in making known the mystery by the opening ofhis mouth, for which he now enjoined them to make supplica- tion to God?

19. On the Epistle to the Colossians.1 In my statement of case
against all heresies my custom is to mark out a short cut on the
evidence of dating, claiming that our rule of faith came first and

19. 1 See Appendix 2.

V. 19

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

631

that all heresy is of more recent emergence. The apostle willnow give evidence of this, when he speaks of the hope laid up inheaven, of which ye have heard in the word of the truth of the gospel,which is come unto you, even as into all the world. For if as early as thatthe gospel tradition had found its way everywhere, much moreso now. Moreover if it is ours which has found its way everywhere,rather than any heretical one, not to speak of Marcion's whichbegan in the days of Antoninus, then the apostolic will be ours.Suppose now that Marcion's has filled the whole world, not evenso can it defend itself as apostolic. Even in such circumstances itmust be clear that the apostolic is that which filled the worldfirst with the gospel of that God who also in a psalm said thisof the preaching of it: Their sound is gone out into every land, and theirwords unto the ends of the world.aHe says Christ is the image of theinvisible God. But it is we who affirm that the Father of Christ isinvisible, for we know that always in the past the Son, as theimage of God, was visible to those to whom he did appear, underthe name of God: so that Marcion may not on this account makedivision and opposition between god visible and god invisible,since from of old it was stated of our God, Noman shall see the Lord,and live.bIf Christ is not the first-begotten of creation, as beingthat Word of the Creator by whom all things were made andwithout whom nothing was made: if it is not true that in him allthings were created in heaven and in earth, things visible andthings invisible, whether thrones or dominations or principalitiesor powers: if it is not true that by him and in him all things werecreated—for it was really necessary that Marcion should dis- approve of this—then the apostle would not have stated soplainly, And he is before all men. For how could he be before allmen if he were not before all things? And how before all thingsif he were not the first-begotten of creation, if he were not theCreator's Word? How can you prove that one was before allmen, who has made his appearance after all things? Who canknow of the priority of one who he did not know existed? Howagain can it have been his good pleasure that in himself all full- ness should dwell? For in the first place, what is this fullness, if itdoes not consist of those things which Marcion has suppressed,those created in Christ, in heaven and on earth, both angels andmen: if it does not consist of those things invisible and visible, ofthrones and dominations and principalities and powers? Or if

V. 19

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

633

these have been imported of their own by our false apostles andJudaizing preachers of the gospel, let Marcion tell us what is thefullness of that god of his who has created nothing. Besides, howcan it be that the rival and overthrower of the Creator shouldhave been content for the Creator's fullness to dwell in his ownparticular Christ? On behalf of whom, once more, does he re- concile all things unto himself, making peace by the blood of his cross, ifnot of him whom all things had offended, against whom they hadrebelled by that transgression—him in short to whom they be- longed? For they might have been conciliated to a stranger, butreconciled to no god except their own. So also us who were afore- time alienated and enemies in our mind by evil works, he has broughtagain into favour with the Creator against whom we had com- mitted offence by worshipping the creation in opposition to theCreator. But just as he affirms that the church is Christ's body,while here he says that he is filling up that which remains overof the afflictions of Christ in <his> flesh, for Christ's body's sakewhich is the church, you may not on that account entirely separatehis reference to that body from the substance of flesh. For he hasjust said that we are being reconciled in his body by means ofdeath: and evidently his death took place in that body in whichby means of the flesh it was possible for him to die—not by meansof the church, though no doubt for the sake of the church, ex- changing body for body, a carnal for a spiritual one. Now whenhe warns them to be on guard against subtle speech and philo- sophy, as a vain deceit which is in accordance with the elements ofthe world—not speaking in terms of heaven and earth but ofsecular literature—and in accordance with the tradition—he meansof men of subtle speech, and philosophers—it would be tiresomeindeed, and it belongs to a different treatise, to show how by thisstatement all heresies are under condemnation, because all ofthem take their stand upon the resources of subtle speech and theprinciples of philosophy. At least let Marcion admit that theprincipal term of his faith is from the school of Epicurus, for toavoid making him an object of fear he introduces a dull sort ofgod,2 and puts on loan even with God the Creator matter fromthe porch of the Stoics when he denies the resurrection of theflesh, which in fact no philosophy admits. From its devices our

19. 2 Perhaps a reminiscence of Seneca, de beneficiis vii. 31. 3, where the Epi- curean gods are described as ignavi hebetesque, lazy and dull.

V. 19

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

635

verity is so far removed that it both fears to stir up the wrath ofGod, and is assured that he has produced all things out of no- thing, and professes that he will reconstitute this same flesh, andis not ashamed that Christ was born of the womb of a virgin, inspite of the mockery of philosophers and heretics and the heathenas well. For God has chosen the foolish things of the world toconfound wise men—that God surely who out of regard for thisordinance of his threatened long ago that he would destroy thewisdom of the wise.c By this simplicity of the truth, the opposite ofsubtle speech and philosophy, we are precluded from imagininganything perverse. Again, as God quickeneth us together withChrist, forgiving our trespasses, we cannot suppose that trespassesare forgiven by him against whom they have not been committedbecause he was at that time unknown. Come now: when he says,Let no man judge you in meat and drink or in respect of an holy day or ofthe new moon or the sabbath, which are the shadow of things to come,but the body is of Christ, what think you, Marcion? We are not nowdiscussing the law, except that here too he explains in what wayit is superseded, by being transferred out of shadow into body;that is, from figures into the truth, and that is Christ. So then theshadow belongs to him whose is the body; which means thatthe law is his whose also is Christ. Separate them off, to one godthe law, to another god Christ, if indeed you can separate anyshadow from that body of which it is the shadow. Evidently Christbelongs to the law, if he is the body of it, the shadow. Again if hepasses censure upon some who because of visions of angels pro- fessed they must abstain from <certain> foods—touch not, taste not—walking in voluntary humility of mind, not holding fast the Head,he is not therefore charging the law, and Moses, with havingforbidden the use of certain foods because of superstition aboutangels: for it is admitted that Moses received the law from God.In fact this sort of conduct—according to the commandments, he says,and doctrines of men—he has laid to the charge of those who werenot holding fast the Head; that is, him in whom all things arebeing summed up, now that the absence of distinction of meatshas been referred back to its origin in Christ. As the rest of hisprecepts are the same as elsewhere, let us be satisfied to haveexplained in other places how they have derived from the Creator:for when he foretold that old things were to pass away, as he wasto make all things new,d and added the commandment, Renew

V. 20

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

637

for yourselves a new fallow,ehe was as early as that teaching themto put off the old man and put on the new.

20. On the Epistle to the Philippians.1 As he enumerates variousfashions of preaching—that some out of confidence in his bondswere more boldly preaching the word, while some through envyand strife, certain of them even of good will for the word, a cer- tain number because of affection, not a few from hostility, andsome even from contentiousness, were preaching Christ—therewas indeed even here opportunity for accusing the preachingitself of diversity of doctrine, seeing it was the cause of so muchvariety in men's tempers. Yet as he sets down as diverse onlymen's outlook of mind, and not the rules of <Christ's> mysteries,he affirms that with whatsoever intention it was one Christ, andone God, his God, who was the subject of that preaching: andconsequently, I make no question, he says, whether in pretence or intruth Christ is preached, because the same one was preached of,whether that were in pretence or in the truth of the faith. For hebrings this reference to the truth into relationship with the faithof the preachers, not the faith as laid down by rule, becausethere was but one rule, yet the faith of some of the preachers wasa true one, being uncomplicated, while that of the others wasexcessively learned. And as that is so it is evident that the Christpreached of was he of whom announcement had always beenmade. For if a completely different Christ were being introducedby the apostle, the newness of the fact would have produceddiversity. Yet there would not have been lacking those who wouldfor all that expound the gospel preaching with reference to theCreator's Christ, in that even today in all localities there aremore people of our judgement than of the heretical one. In whichcase not even here would the apostle have refrained from remark- ing on and castigating diversity: and so, when diversity is noteven a matter of criticism, there is no approval of novelty. Evi- dently here too the Marcionites suppose that in respect of Christ'ssubstance the apostle expresses agreement with them, <suggesting>that there was in Christ a phantasm of flesh, when he says thatbeing established in the form of God he thought it not robbery to be madeequal with God, but emptied himself by taking up the form of a servant—not 'the truth'—and <was> in the likeness of man—not 'in a man'—

20. 1 See Appendix 2.

V. 20

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

639

and was found in fashion as a man—not 'in substance', that is, notin flesh: as though fashion and likeness and form were not attri- butes of substance as well. But it is well that in.another placealso he calls Christ the image of the invisible God.aSo then here toowhere he says he is in the form of God, Christ will have tobe not really and truly God, if he was not really man whenestablished in the form of man. For that 'really and truly'must of necessity be ruled out on both sides if form and likenessand fashion are to be claimed as meaning phantasm. But if inthe form and image of the Father, being his Son, he is truly God,this is proof beforehand that when found also in the form andimage of man, being the Son of man, he is truly man. And whenhe wrote 'found', he meant it—'most indubitably man'. For thatwhich a thing 'is found' to be, it certainly is. So also he was foundto be God through his act of power, as he is found to be man byreason of his flesh: for the apostle could not have declared himobedient unto death if he had not been established in a substancecapable of death. More even than that, he adds the words, Eventhe death of the cross. For he would not have piled on the horror,lifting on high the virtue of subjection, if he had known thisto be imaginary and phantasmal, if Christ had cheated deathinstead of suffering it, and in his passion had performed an actnot of power but of illusion. Now the things he had formerlycounted gain, the things he has just made a list of, glorying inthe flesh, the mark of circumcision, the rank and descent ofHebrew from Hebrew, the nobility of the tribe of Benjamin, thedignity of pharisaic office,—it is these he now counts as loss tohim—not the Jews' God, but the Jews' lack of feeling. These henow counts but as dung by comparison with the knowledge ofChrist—not by any rejection of God the Creator—and has nowa righteousness not his own or derived from the law, but arighteousness which is 'by him', meaning Christ, from God. So,you object, in view of this contrast, the law did not come fromthe God of Christ. How clever you are. Now hear somethingcleverer. When he says, Not that which is of the law but that whichis through him, he could not have said through him except of onewhose the law was. Our citizenship, he says, is in heaven. I recognizehere the Creator's very old promise to Abraham: And I will makethy seed as the stars in heaven.bConsequently also, One star differethfrom another star in glory.cBut if Christ when he comes from heaven

826805 C C

V. 21

ADVERSUS MARCIONEM

641

is to transform the body of our humility into conformity with thebody of his glory, then that which is to rise again is this body ofours, which is humbled by what it undergoes, and is cast downto earth by nothing but the law of death. For how shall it betransformed, if it does not exist? Or if this is spoken of those whoat God's coming are to be found still in the flesh and will then bechanged,d what shall those do who rise first? Will they havenothing from which to be transformed? And yet he says, Withthem we shall be caught up together in the clouds to meet the Lord.eIfwith them we are to be lifted up, with them we shall also havebeen transformed.

21. On the Epistle to Philemon. This epistle alone has so profitedby its brevity as to escape Marcion's falsifying hands. As howeverhe has accepted this letter to a single person, I do not see why hehas rejected two written to Timothy and one to Titus about thechurch system. I suppose he had a whim to meddle even with thenumber of the epistles.

Take note, examiner, that the matters discussed in the previouspart of this treatise I have now proved from the apostle's writings,and have completed such parts as were reserved for the presentwork. So then you are not to think superfluous the repetition bywhich I have confirmed my original intention, nor are you todoubt the legitimacy of the delay from which I have at lengthrescued these subjects. If your examination covers the whole work,you will censure neither superfluity in the present nor lack ofconviction in the past.